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

[Monstradamus]

And I did, but I think you have the portions confused as to which is the poisoned one. It's pretty much well-established fact from the trial that Erin wasn't poisoned. Her "symptoms" were self-induced. She pigged out on cake, drank coffee, and ate a sandwich with chili and hotdogs to give herself diarrhea. Also, her lab levels were fairly normal. No signs of liver damage.

I believe EP was very busy tampering with the leftovers evidence after she initially left the hospital to "pack her daughter's ballet bag". Removed the meat to retrofit her story of feeding that to her children for dinner.
It's the ONLY time she had been helpful to health authorities/investigators. They found only what she wanted them to find.
MOO

 

[packetgravy]

View attachment 608986

Yes, Tray 2 - small sample

 

[packetgravy]

And I did, but I think you have the portions confused as to which is the poisoned one. It's pretty much well-established fact from the trial that Erin wasn't poisoned. Her "symptoms" were self-induced. She pigged out on cake, drank coffee, and ate a sandwich with chili and hotdogs to give herself diarrhea. Also, her lab levels were fairly normal. No signs of liver damage.

Both samples were found in the same bag, which was described as "seeping" (2 days post lunch) and had to be double bagged. There's a high chance of cross contamination, the sample tested on Tray 2 could have been underneath the Tray 1 sample and contaminated by the Tray 1 sample. I don't think we can definitively say that the 6th BW didn't have toxins present.
When the leftovers arrived at Leongatha Hospital the nurse also picked through them before they were taken to be tested.
But we can state with certainty that toxins were found in the entire leftovers.
JMO

The beef Wellington on Tray 1 did not contain traces of toxins. Had there been enough toxins/ DNA present to effectively “seep” from the 6th Wellington into the smaller portion, we would see this represented in the samples.

The large portion did not contain samples.

 

[Goosewhisperer]

The beef Wellington on Tray 1 did not contain traces of toxins. Had there been enough toxins/ DNA present to effectively “seep” from the 6th Wellington into the smaller portion, we would see this represented in the samples.

The large portion did not contain samples.

How do you determine which Wellington leftovers were on which tray if they came from the same bag?

 

[Deleted member 363451]

The beef Wellington on Tray 1 did not contain traces of toxins. Had there been enough toxins/ DNA present to effectively “seep” from the 6th Wellington into the smaller portion, we would see this represented in the samples.

The large portion did not contain samples.

If Simon had have attended the lunch, she would have given him a poisoned Beef Wellington.

 

[JBowie]

If Simon had have attended the lunch, she would have given him a poisoned Beef Wellington.

Without a doubt, IMO.

 

[Monstradamus]

The beef Wellington on Tray 1 did not contain traces of toxins. Had there been enough toxins/ DNA present to effectively “seep” from the 6th Wellington into the smaller portion, we would see this represented in the samples.

The large portion did not contain samples.

Do you know if every single piece of the BWs were sampled? Doesn't appear to be the case.
Small samples, quite substantial BWs.

 

[Detechtive]

In pictures: All the evidence you haven’t seen from Erin Patterson’s trial

Text messages, expert analysis and photos shown throughout the mass murderer’s 10-week trial. Here are all the exhibits given to the jury in Erin Patterson’s mushroom murder trial.

7news.com.au

View attachment 608977View attachment 608978View attachment 608979

You are correct that only DNA samples were able to detect toxins, but they were not found in the 6th beef Wellington.

Here are the results for the leftovers found in the bin which were separated onto tray one and two for testing. The partially eaten portion is on Tray 2, the Wellington on Tray 1 has been split but remains mostly intact.

The contents have been separated for testing.

DNA for toxins as per the results were detected in samples:
EX XI XI6 - Tray 2 mushroom paste
EX X1 Z13 - Tray 2 meat sample

No toxins found from Tray 1 - the 6th beef Wellington.

The leftovers were discarded together in a single bag, making it impossible to accurately separate or attribute them to individual trays. From what I can see, Tray 2 appears to contain a portion from the Tray 1 sample - but in any case, the samples were mixed, and there’s no reliable way to claim that “Simon’s portion” contained no Amanitin.

What the analysis does confirm, however, is that not all of the food was poisoned - suggesting that some of the contents were either her own leftovers or a test batch prepared without toxins.

IMO.

 

[Detechtive]

Pure speculation:

My working theory is that the meat, not the duxelle, was the poisoned component. This would explain why one of the duxelle samples returned a positive result for Amanitins: as the beef cooked, toxic steam or vapours likely migrated upward, contaminating the duxelle from the inside. The outer pastry layer, however, may have remained unaffected - particularly if wrapped in Filo pastry, which could have been used intentionally as a barrier to minimise outward contamination.

This theory also helps explain her behaviour post-lunch. She removed and discarded the meat from what we refer to as “Simon’s portion” before placing it in the bin - effectively eliminating the most likely source of the poison before it could be tested. It also aligns with her claim that she “only gave the kids the meat,” which may have been a calculated statement. In her mind, if the duxelle and pastry were clean and the meat was gone, she thought she had protected herself from detection.

What she may not have accounted for is the water-soluble nature of Amanita phalloides toxins, which rose during cooking and contaminated the duxelle despite her precautions.

IMO.

 

[Podcast Tragic]

Does anyone know how her biological mother died?

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Does anyone know how her biological mother died?

Cancer supposedly.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

There is a distinction between a ‘rightful’ victim and a legal one. Of course Simon is a victim by definition but by legal definition (in this trial) he is not. Ian Wilkinson will receive a lot more as a legal victim of a murder attempt.

Because Simon is still legally married to Erin, he would be entitled to a share of Erin's properties if anything happened to her and there was anything left after the solicitors fees.

 

[Detechtive]

Does anyone know how her biological mother died?

Cancer was the official diagnosis, I believe, but she told me she drank herself to death. You may have seen this in the media.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

He must have been fairly sure in his mind that she was poisoning him to ask his solicitor to make it a legal matter.

He told his solicitor prior to the meal that he thought she'd poisoned him?

I must have missed that, surely that would be admissible in court.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

He told his solicitor prior to the meal that he thought she'd poisoned him?

I must have missed that, surely that would be admissible in court.

No.

 

[Detechtive]

He changed his next of kin to Donald not Erin for medical decisions. I’m not sure if it was done via a solicitor because advanced health directives don’t need to be, but he did this in February 2023 according to pre trial evidence.

 

[packetgravy]

Do you know if every single piece of the BWs were sampled? Doesn't appear to be the case.
Small samples, quite substantial BWs.

I thought the sample from her bin contained about 1 and a half BWs, and there was no visual evidence of DCs. But later the food was tested using a different method, and DC toxin DNA was found. Which would make sense if the DCs were added to the meal in powdered form. How do we know that the 6th BW did not contain death caps if the 2 samples were collected together? We know that EP's BW didn't contain DCs, because she didn't poison herself.
So it's more likely that the toxin DNA found came from the 6th BW. The one prepared (lovingly) for Simon

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.

Adrian Martinez-Villalobos searched outdoor bins at the Patterson home and found “about 1½ beef Wellingtons” inside “a brown paper Woolworths bag”.

The two Wellingtons were later separated onto two trays as below, samples were taken from both portions. The mushrooms were blitzed into powder, no traces were found from the Wellington on the left.

I’m simply sharing the results.

 

[Monstradamus]

Adrian Martinez-Villalobos searched outdoor bins at the Patterson home and found “about 1½ beef Wellingtons” inside “a brown paper Woolworths bag”.

The two Wellingtons were later separated onto two trays as below, samples were taken from both portions. The mushrooms were blitzed into powder, no traces were found from the Wellington on the left.

I’m simply sharing the results.

View attachment 609006

Do you believe EP tampered with the leftovers, @packetgravy?

 

[packetgravy]

Because Simon is still legally married to Erin, he would be entitled to a share of Erin's properties if anything happened to her and there was anything left after the solicitors fees.

That’s not how the law works in Victoria, being incarcerated does not effectively remove your asset rights.

They were legally separated, Simon confirmed this in his tax filing.

Yes he is entitled to his share in any assets in his name. I believe this includes the Leongatha property which is unfortunately under caveat - a statutory conjunction. After the debtors receive their share, I’m afraid there won’t be much left.

There is a process to follow when splitting assets, this process does not change following separation. Erin and Simon will need to agree on how any remaining properties are split, or they will go to court.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

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

BBM
100%! This really sums it all up, in one neat sentence.

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.

Do we know what age her son was at the time? I'm guessing 13-14? Was the daughter home too? I know she is younger again. Show of hands amongst the parents please - if you're the only adult in the house, would you just up and leave, drive away for what has to be at least 20 minutes, and not even tell your children you're leaving? Especially if you live in a rural area and may not have neighbours close by? I know I'm probably more protective than most, but I can't fathom it. Even now my kids are adults we always let the whole family know when we're leaving, and at least one person knows a rough time we'll be home, as a sign of respect, for planning purposes or to know when to be concerned if that person hasn't returned. We also live in the country so it's not like we've just popped next door or something if we can't be found.