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

[Ellery84]

When EP went to the tip after lunch, she hid the trip from her son. But it still was not allowed in evidence.

Did she just sneak out?

 

[packetgravy]

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?

Yes.

And also the lack of urgency to get those children out of there? Regardless of whether her target is just Simon, if we suspected a Dad was attempting to murder a Mom, would we be so…. casual.

 

[drsleuth]

On what grounds did JB and the defence have the evidence ruled inadmissible?

Incriminating Conduct Notice

1. The Incriminating Conduct Notice states, relevantly:

(a) That on 29 July 2023, at 3:29pm (less than an hour after the lunch concluded), the accused attended the Koonwarra Transfer Station and Landfill and disposed of unknown item/s and a small amount of cardboard, despite her home‘wheelie’ bins being relatively empty.

322. On 29 July 2023 at 3.29pm, less than an hour after the lunch concluded, the accused drove her red 4WD bearing registration 1XZ4OZ477to the Koonwarra Transfer Station and Landfill. The accused deposited an unknown item/items and asmall amount of cardboard at 3.30pm,which the records indicate fell within the categories ‘120 L bin’ and ‘.5 m pap/card’. At 3.51pm,the accused made a payment of $9.50 to ‘Damsa Environmental’, the waste management company operating the Koonwarra Transfer Station.The accused’s mobile service data suggests she departed the Leongatha area between 3.23pm to 3.45pm, consistent with heading southwest. (See Notice of incriminating Conduct).

Submissions

Prosecution

1. Th eprosecution submitted that the timing of the trip to the tip (shortly after the lunch concluded), the fact that she only disposed of a small amount of cardboard and another small item or items when she had sufficient bin space at home, and the fact that, unusually,she did not tell her young son that she was going to the tip were sufficient grounds for a jury to infer that the item or items disposed of were connected to the fatal meal and were incriminating. A properly directed jury would not improperly jump to that conclusion from her disposal of the dehydrator on 2August 2023.

Accused

The accused submitted that this evidence is irrelevant (ss 55, 56) because, a partf rom a small amount of cardboard, the items discarded are ‘unknown’. The accused submitted that the prosecution is inviting bootstraps reasoning and speculation that the discarded items are incriminating items. Alternatively, the accused submitted the evidence should be excluded because the risk of unfair prejudice outweighs its probative value (s 137): because it is conceded the accused disposed of a dehydrator at the same tip on 2 August 2023, the jury will jump to the conclusion that the item or items disposed at the tip on 29 July2023 must have been connected to the poisoned meal in someway.

Analysis

1. Where a suspect conceals or destroys something which, by its nature, could potentially be incriminating (e.g., a body which may enable the cause of death to be determined), a jury could reasonably infer that its concealment or destruction amounted to an implied admission of guilt, but where the nature of the thing is unknown, it is another matter: one is moving into the realms of speculation. In my view, that is the case here. I accept the accused’s submission that since Item (a) invites speculation, it fails the test of relevance.

R v Patterson (Ruling 4) [2025] VSC 105 (14 March 2025)

 

[Ellery84]

Yes.

And also the lack of urgency to get those children out of there? Regardless of whether her target is just Simon, if we suspected a Dad was attempting to murder a Mom, would we be so…. casual.

At that point in time, I don’t think Simon had the protective behaviours as a dad that he was as supposed to have.

And I think DOCS would have worked with him on protective behaviours before he got the kids back in his care full time.

It’s a unique situation where his wife was a diabolical mass murderer masquerading as a suburban mum, so it’s complicated.

IMO

 

[Monstradamus]

1. The Incriminating Conduct Notice states, relevantly:

322. On 29 July 2023 at 3.29pm, less than an hour after the lunch concluded, the accused drove her red 4WD bearing registration 1XZ4OZ477to the Koonwarra Transfer Station and Landfill. The accused deposited an unknown item/items and asmall amount of cardboard at 3.30pm,which the records indicate fell within the categories ‘120 L bin’ and ‘.5 m pap/card’. At 3.51pm,the accused made a payment of $9.50 to ‘Damsa Environmental’, the waste management company operating the Koonwarra Transfer Station.The accused’s mobile service data suggests she departed the Leongatha area between 3.23pm to 3.45pm, consistent with heading southwest. (See Notice of incriminating Conduct).

1. Th eprosecution submitted that the timing of the trip to the tip (shortly after the lunch concluded), the fact that she only disposed of a small amount of cardboard and another small item or items when she had sufficient bin space at home, and the fact that, unusually,she did not tell her young son that she was going to the tip were sufficient grounds for a jury to infer that the item or items disposed of were connected to the fatal meal and were incriminating. A properly directed jury would not improperly jump to that conclusion from her disposal of the dehydrator on 2August 2023.

The accused submitted that this evidence is irrelevant (ss 55, 56) because, a partf rom a small amount of cardboard, the items discarded are ‘unknown’. The accused submitted that the prosecution is inviting bootstraps reasoning and speculation that the discarded items are incriminating items. Alternatively, the accused submitted the evidence should be excluded because the risk of unfair prejudice outweighs its probative value (s 137): because it is conceded the accused disposed of a dehydrator at the same tip on 2 August 2023, the jury will jump to the conclusion that the item or items disposed at the tip on 29 July2023 must have been connected to the poisoned meal in someway.

1. Where a suspect conceals or destroys something which, by its nature, could potentially be incriminating (e.g., a body which may enable the cause of death to be determined), a jury could reasonably infer that its concealment or destruction amounted to an implied admission of guilt, but where the nature of the thing is unknown, it is another matter: one is moving into the realms of speculation. In my view, that is the case here. I accept the accused’s submission that since Item (a) invites speculation, it fails the test of relevance.

R v Patterson (Ruling 4) [2025] VSC 105 (14 March 2025)

Shouldn't the speculation of the 1st tip visit after the lunch be up to the Jury to decide it's relevance? I'm disappointed this evidence wasn't allowed.

 

[packetgravy]

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.

So….. a patient tells a doctor their partner is trying to kill them. The doctor then discloses this information to ANOTHER doctor but neither of them alert the police. Is this not negligent?

 

[Ellery84]

Shouldn't the speculation of the 1st tip visit after the lunch be up to the Jury to decide it's relevance? I'm disappointed this evidence wasn't allowed.

As am I. I feel that the Judge really was very generous to the defence team in a lot of his decisions, but hopefully that will protect against the success of an appeal.

IMO

 

[packetgravy]

Did she just sneak out?

A teenage boy gaming with his friend wouldn’t even notice if the house was on fire around him lol. She probably just walked out the front door.

 

[Charlot123]

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?

If Simon pulled out at the last minute, 15 minutes before the lunch, yes.

If he told her the day before, probably, not. Maybe he thought that she targeted only him…and if so, called ahead of the time, refused and gave her enough time to change the food?

JMO, it is an unconventional idea, to think that your wife is poisoning you. If one shares this suspicion with someone, it would start with, “you will probably think I am crazy, but…” Or perhaps the parents, if they were thinking along the same lines, said, “you should stay at home. She is angry with you, not with us.”

Or perhaps, highly likely, Simon said, “I think she is adding something to my morning coffee”, and the guests refused the coffee?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

1. The Incriminating Conduct Notice states, relevantly:

322. On 29 July 2023 at 3.29pm, less than an hour after the lunch concluded, the accused drove her red 4WD bearing registration 1XZ4OZ477to the Koonwarra Transfer Station and Landfill. The accused deposited an unknown item/items and asmall amount of cardboard at 3.30pm,which the records indicate fell within the categories ‘120 L bin’ and ‘.5 m pap/card’. At 3.51pm,the accused made a payment of $9.50 to ‘Damsa Environmental’, the waste management company operating the Koonwarra Transfer Station.The accused’s mobile service data suggests she departed the Leongatha area between 3.23pm to 3.45pm, consistent with heading southwest. (See Notice of incriminating Conduct).

1. Th eprosecution submitted that the timing of the trip to the tip (shortly after the lunch concluded), the fact that she only disposed of a small amount of cardboard and another small item or items when she had sufficient bin space at home, and the fact that, unusually,she did not tell her young son that she was going to the tip were sufficient grounds for a jury to infer that the item or items disposed of were connected to the fatal meal and were incriminating. A properly directed jury would not improperly jump to that conclusion from her disposal of the dehydrator on 2August 2023.

The accused submitted that this evidence is irrelevant (ss 55, 56) because, a partf rom a small amount of cardboard, the items discarded are ‘unknown’. The accused submitted that the prosecution is inviting bootstraps reasoning and speculation that the discarded items are incriminating items. Alternatively, the accused submitted the evidence should be excluded because the risk of unfair prejudice outweighs its probative value (s 137): because it is conceded the accused disposed of a dehydrator at the same tip on 2 August 2023, the jury will jump to the conclusion that the item or items disposed at the tip on 29 July2023 must have been connected to the poisoned meal in someway.

1. Where a suspect conceals or destroys something which, by its nature, could potentially be incriminating (e.g., a body which may enable the cause of death to be determined), a jury could reasonably infer that its concealment or destruction amounted to an implied admission of guilt, but where the nature of the thing is unknown, it is another matter: one is moving into the realms of speculation. In my view, that is the case here. I accept the accused’s submission that since Item (a) invites speculation, it fails the test of relevance.

R v Patterson (Ruling 4) [2025] VSC 105 (14 March 2025)

Thanks so much for all the info. It seems bizarre to me that this incident was ruled inadmissible - oh we don't know why she went to the dump or what she was discarding so we'll rule it out as being worrisome or indicating some guilty behaviour... :/

 

[Charlot123]

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.

The whole idea to poison one’s guests with death caps is such random obsessive idiocy that it is impossible to even understand her reasoning. I think that if they all refused to come, she’d poison the church’s water with cholera or arsenic, only to get at Simon.

Which invites a thought. She probably left very few Internet searches. But she used to resell books. Did she ever get her hands on a book about poisons? Simon might remember. Or, does a local library have a book about “poisons in my garden”, or such? She leaned on something one might find growing around, nightshades or death caps. I wonder if hemlock could be the next one.

As I was looking, I found an article about “world deadliest plants” in Britannica. I suspect the only consistency in her actions would be using some “edibles that one could eat accidentally”.

 

[Monstradamus]

So….. a patient tells a doctor their partner is trying to kill them. The doctor then discloses this information to ANOTHER doctor but neither of them alert the police. Is this not negligent?

I believe Simon's GP alerted Dr Webster once the victims were admitted, and I'm guessing (once armed with that pertinent information) Dr Webster called the police after EP left the hospital after 5 minutes.

 

[Two SCents]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

From Simon's evidence at trial....

"He recalls at the time his son was very tired while staying with him. He subsequently asked Erin to help his son get to bed earlier. He says Erin sent a reply to the group chat on Signal with his parents."

Erin Patterson described estranged husband as ‘coercive’ and in-laws as ‘demanding’, trial hears – as it happened

This blog is now closed

www.theguardian.com

 

[packetgravy]

If Simon pulled out at the last minute, 15 minutes before the lunch, yes.

If he told her the day before, probably, not. Maybe he thought that she targeted only him…and if so, called ahead of the time, refused and gave her enough time to change the food?

JMO, it is an unconventional idea, to think that your wife is poisoning you. If one shares this suspicion with someone, it would start with, “you will probably think I am crazy, but…” Or perhaps the parents, if they were thinking along the same lines, said, “you should stay at home. She is angry with you, not with us.”

Or perhaps, highly likely, Simon said, “I think she is adding something to my morning coffee”, and the guests refused the coffee?

I found it interesting how in Gail’s diary she wrote
-“lunch at Erins with Heather and Ian.”

but not Simon?

 

[Charlot123]

Yep & it says on the box take one tablet daily when required for anxiety. One tablet was missing. Script was filled in the last week of her life.

Wonder what Erin did with the other 49 tablets?? Probably safe to say she didn't hand them back to the pharmacist to discard IMO

I wonder if it is easier to kill by adding Diazepam into food or by withholding it in someone who habitually uses high doses? But of course, her mom had an illness, so it was predestined.

 

[packetgravy]

The estimates I've seen are that the trial and pre-trial has probably cost her at least 1.5m

Yes it’s a lot! There are other houses left to compensate the victims and pay child support thankfully.

Also, because the charges for the attempted murders of Simon were dropped, he will no longer legally be a “victim” and entitled to much/if any compensation

He must be reeling since hes been forced into early retirement with his injuries

 

[Monstradamus]

Yes it’s a lot! There are other houses left to compensate the victims and pay child support thankfully.

Also, because the charges for the attempted murders of Simon were dropped, he will no longer legally be a “victim” and entitled to much/if any compensation

He must be reeling since hes been forced into early retirement with his injuries

Even though EP testified that the 6th Beef Wellington was prepared for Simon? He could probably pursue a (expensive) civil claim. But that would take away a huge chunk of his children's inheritance.

 

[LinasK]

Even though EP testified that the 6th Beef Wellington was prepared for Simon? He could probably pursue a (expensive) civil claim. But that would take away a huge chunk of his children's inheritance.

That he can then regift to them in his own inheritance.

 

[packetgravy]

Even though EP testified that the 6th Beef Wellington was prepared for Simon? He could probably pursue a (expensive) civil claim. But that would take away a huge chunk of his children's inheritance.

Yes and that would be difficult even with her testimony.

Why?
The 6th beef Wellington was found intact in her bin, with her own partly eaten portion.

The 6th beef Wellington did NOT contain death caps.

If it were meant for Simon, it was not meant to kill him.

 

[packetgravy]

That he can then regift to them in his own inheritance.

They’ll inherit from Erin, there will still be a reasonable amount remaining, especially now she has one less victim to compensate.