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

[Tortoise]

Yes. We are aware Simon was invited and he absolutely would have been served a beef Wellington.

However (most surprising for me, out for the four attempted charges) the beef Wellington lunch murder attempt was dropped due to an absence of evidence.

Why Simon's alleged poisoning charges were dropped - South Gippsland Sentinel Times

ON MONDAY, July 7, 2025, Leongatha mother of two, Erin Patterson, was found guilty on four charges, three counts of murder against her in-laws Gail and Don Patterson and Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson, and one of attempted murder against Ian...

www.sgst.com.au

It’s a rough system for sure.

I was responding to your point that the sixth Wellington didn't contain death caps and wasn't therefore intended to kill Simon.

The absence of evidence, IMO, would have been the absence of an admission from Erin, pre-trial, that she had still made him a Wellington despite him texting to say he would not be attending. Now they have it.

 

[Two SCents]

It wasn't mentioned in her son's testimony.


from: Erin Patterson took son on hours-long drive despite feeling sick, murder trial hears — as it happened

He says he spent about 30 minutes with the lunch guests and he agrees that "everyone seems happy" when asked by the interviewing police officer.

Erin's son says he can't remember his sister coming inside and his sister wasn't in the car when Erin drove his friend home.

He says he didn't have any conversation with his mother about how the lunch went after the guests left.

He says he presumes his mother was tidying up the kitchen and he remembers taking some lunch plates to the dishwasher. He says he can't remember if there was any leftovers on the plates.

Erin's son says he and his friend played a game with headphones on for about two or two and a half hours and can't remember taking any toilet or drink breaks.

He says he went upstairs around 5.30pm to tell his mother his friend had to go home soon. They left the home shortly after to take his friend home.

Playback of the recording is then paused while the court takes a break.

Erin Patterson took son on hours-long drive despite feeling sick, murder trial hears — as it happened

Erin Patterson is accused of murdering three relatives by serving them a beef Wellington that contained death cap mushrooms. Look back at how the day in court unfolded.

www.abc.net.au

Yes, it is linked in this post.

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

Aug 16, 2025

Not sure if this has been mentioned. When EP went to the tip after lunch, she hid the trip from her son. But it still was not allowed in evidence.

This is too unfair to the prosecution since Mandy is over their arguing that police didn't find the different color plates at the house. And EP is testifying about her afterlunch cake binge and purge.

That ruling may have been the worst decision the judge made.

I wonder if the prosecution would have been allowed to ask her to say everything she did after the lunch. I don't see why not, but who knows. And then if she never mentioned the tip...

• Smelly Squirrel

• 
• 

Thank you.

Without seeing what the son was asked and how he answered it's not really convincing that she snuck out imo.

It doesn't make sense to me that if her trip to the tip was to dispose of evidence, why didn't she take the leftovers?

 

[Detechtive]

Yes. We are aware Simon was invited and he absolutely would have been served a beef Wellington.

However (most surprising for me, out for the four attempted charges) the beef Wellington lunch murder attempt was dropped due to an absence of evidence.

Why Simon's alleged poisoning charges were dropped - South Gippsland Sentinel Times

ON MONDAY, July 7, 2025, Leongatha mother of two, Erin Patterson, was found guilty on four charges, three counts of murder against her in-laws Gail and Don Patterson and Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson, and one of attempted murder against Ian...

www.sgst.com.au

It’s a rough system for sure.

<modsnip>

The attempted murder charges were dropped due to prejudice.

 

[SouthAussie]

Without seeing what the son was asked and how he answered it's not really convincing that she snuck out imo.

It is not really speculative. Crown prosecutor Sarah Lenthall is quoted in the article I linked saying that .... “There was an element of secrecy … (her son) and his friend were at home. He was not told she was leaving the house. It was an unusual occurrence not to tell him.”

Presumably she knows this as a fact as she clearly stated it in the pre-trial hearing. Colin Mandy did not deny it. He only said that no-one knows what Erin was dumping at the time, and he managed to get that trip ruled out of evidence.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/the-mushroom-cook/what-the-jury-in-the-erin-patterson-murder-trial-didnt-know/news-story/4a48d030b53f7ed4c631e61c4d7c141d?amp&nk=6c4615e8574ad1be82835a809dc6bd41-1755438923

 

[packetgravy]

The attempted murder charges were dropped due to prejudice.

Source?

 

[iamshadow21]

Source?

Why Simon's alleged poisoning charges were dropped - South Gippsland Sentinel Times

ON MONDAY, July 7, 2025, Leongatha mother of two, Erin Patterson, was found guilty on four charges, three counts of murder against her in-laws Gail and Don Patterson and Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson, and one of attempted murder against Ian...

www.sgst.com.au

In fact, the police and the prosecution wanted to proceed with the charges relating to Simon Patterson and took the objections of the respondent’s defence counsel, Colin Mandy SC, agreed to by Justice Beale in pre-trial hearings, to the Court of Appeal on April 3, 2025 for a ruling. They lost. They were not given leave to appeal Justice Beale’s ruling that the probative value of coincidence evidence, around the alleged poisoning of Simon Patterson, was substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect on the accused.

“His Honour considered that a finding that the respondent deliberately poisoned the four lunch guests would create a very significant risk of the jurors misusing or overvaluing the evidence in relation to the charges concerning the events allegedly relating to Simon Patterson."

 

[Tortoise]

25. Would the jurors in the present case be as rigorous in applying the criminal standard of proof as they should be, if they formed the view that the accused had deliberately and fatally poisoned Simon Patterson’s mother, father and aunt and had deliberately and nearly fatally poisoned his uncle? Would the jurors be able to dispassionately assess the evidence specific to Charges 1–3 and pay full heed to the limitations of the medical evidence regarding the possible causes of Simon Patterson’s severe illnesses. Moreover, would the jurors be able to resist rank propensity reasoning such as ‘he deliberately poisoned Simon Patterson’s parents, uncle and aunty: isn’t it likely, then, that she deliberately poisoned Simon Patterson?’ All of these dangers or risks could, of course, be the subject of directions, but the guiding principle that jurors can generally be trusted to abide by directions admits of exceptions. Even if the impugned evidence is credited with significant probative value, I am not persuaded that its probative value substantially outweighs the significant danger or risk of unfair prejudice to the accused.

26. As agreed by the parties, my ruling that the coincidence evidence is inadmissible means that there must be two trials — one in respect of Charges 1–3 and one in respect of Charges 4–7. Pursuant to s 193 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), I order severance of the indictment as it would be unfair to hear all the charges together.

R v Patterson (Ruling 6) [2025] VSC 108 (14 March 2025)

 

[Jake18]

Thank you.

Without seeing what the son was asked and how he answered it's not really convincing that she snuck out imo.

It doesn't make sense to me that if her trip to the tip was to dispose of evidence, why didn't she take the leftovers?

She knew the police would want to test them, she thought they’d exonerate her.

I’m coming around to Detechtive’s theory that it was the meat she messed with. The whole Wellington in the bin was missing most of its meat - I did think she disposed of this. She didn’t realise how good the toxicology tests are.

The trip to the dump after the meal is very strange. Upthread drsleuth posted prosecution statements that her bins were empty, surprisingly so, with the exception of the leftover wellingtons. There was enough room for some cut up cardboard boxes and whatever else she was disposing of. So why tootle off to the dump as soon as the guests left?

 

[LinasK]

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.

That's wise because you just know she'd have had him disconnected from Life Support whether it was valid or not.

 

[LinasK]

I have no idea! The half eaten portion contained death caps, I’d assume if she didn’t want it found she wouldn’t have directed the police to it?

Can you elaborate as to what you believe she may have done with the leftovers and why?

Sometimes murderers appear to be cooperative with police to lead them on a wild goose chase- like they won't suspect me if I cooperate.

 

[LinasK]

Erin Patterson poisoned him on 4 occasions and murdered his parents and aunt. Of course he's a victim!

5 actually when you include the cookies. 4 meals + cookies. There's no reason to believe that she wouldn't have poisoned him this time as well. The 6th's time's the charm! Off both him and his family- she's done with them!

 

[LinasK]

I haven't read the thread for awhile and have just read the last few pages.
I'm so confused.

And yes I have finally come around to thinking that what happened was planned and not an accident.
I've been doing a lot of reading up on what was not allowed to be heard and I am convinced.

Can I come back into the fold now

Welcome back Tootsie. Glad you now see what we do.

 

[LinasK]

Don't forget she was in a panic at this stage and was already making bad decisions. She had lied about never owning a dehydrator despite leaving behind a manual and photographs.

She might simply have decided at that point that it would look worse if she didn't direct them to leftovers and they subsequently found them. She then clearly invented the Asian grocer fiasco.

It seems clear to me that she never anticipated that DC would be suspected, and was quite careless. Perhaps she was emboldened by the times she'd poisoned Simon and how nothing had subsequently been found.

That's exactly what I think. She'd gotten away with 5 previous attempts. She got sloppy and thought she was smarter than the police, or could manipulate them the way she had everyone else in her life so far.

 

[Ellery84]

Source?

He/She’s a verified insider on the case. He/she can be their own source, if they have the inside information.

 

[LinasK]

She knew the police would want to test them, she thought they’d exonerate her.

I’m coming around to Detechtive’s theory that it was the meat she messed with. The whole Wellington in the bin was missing most of its meat - I did think she disposed of this. She didn’t realise how good the toxicology tests are.

The trip to the dump after the meal is very strange. Upthread drsleuth posted prosecution statements that her bins were empty, surprisingly so, with the exception of the leftover wellingtons. There was enough room for some cut up cardboard boxes and whatever else she was disposing of. So why tootle off to the dump as soon as the guests left?

That's the most damning evidence of all! This was no accident or she wouldn't be heading to the dump only 30 min after her guests left, and again to dump the dehydrator. It wouldn't occur to someone who had accidentally added DC's to do that that soon. It's consciousness of guilt. There's no "panic" defense here. She panicked because she's guilty.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Welcome back Tootsie. Glad you now see what we do.

Thanks so much, but I still believe there was not enough information available to make ME feel absolutely certain one way or the other.

I like that I was trying to be fair and I will still feel that way no matter how many others have a different opinion.

 

[Charlot123]

Thank you.

Without seeing what the son was asked and how he answered it's not really convincing that she snuck out imo.

It doesn't make sense to me that if her trip to the tip was to dispose of evidence, why didn't she take the leftovers?

She might have disposed of poisoned evidence, and left the unpoisoned leftovers in the bin.

We still rely on Erin's testimony that she prepared two beefs Wellingtons. Who's to say that she didn't lie and didn't prepare three?

To me, the fact that four people entered her house, ate the beef, developed GI symptoms in a few hours and in a few days, three out of four were dead from death caps, while no one in the house got sick, is Occam's razor. IMHO, if Simon accepted the invitation, he'd be dead, too.

The person that I suspect attempted to poison (*someone*) had a peculiar mentality. He didn't just lie. His lying was like a ziggurat: a person lies, then lies to cover the initial lie, then lies again to cover the previous one. Most times people just get tired of the senselessness and leave. At this, people function well, are organized, never late, get promoted. But when it comes to stories about their personal life, it comes to, "don't you understand that you should not say that your ex died in a car accident when she is alive?" I suspect that these people live in the worlds of mega-phantasy merged with grandiosity. I don't know if Erin is like it, but if she is, her lies must have been very difficult to untangle. So she is behind bars, forever, and it is good because she can't be a threat to the society.

 

[Monstradamus]

Thanks so much, but I still believe there was not enough information available to make ME feel absolutely certain one way or the other.

I like that I was trying to be fair and I will still feel that way no matter how many others have a different opinion.

The Jury saw and heard a lot more evidence than we did. But they certainly missed out on a lot, too, imo.

 

[packetgravy]

Why Simon's alleged poisoning charges were dropped - South Gippsland Sentinel Times

ON MONDAY, July 7, 2025, Leongatha mother of two, Erin Patterson, was found guilty on four charges, three counts of murder against her in-laws Gail and Don Patterson and Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson, and one of attempted murder against Ian...

www.sgst.com.au

In fact, the police and the prosecution wanted to proceed with the charges relating to Simon Patterson and took the objections of the respondent’s defence counsel, Colin Mandy SC, agreed to by Justice Beale in pre-trial hearings, to the Court of Appeal on April 3, 2025 for a ruling. They lost. They were not given leave to appeal Justice Beale’s ruling that the probative value of coincidence evidence, around the alleged poisoning of Simon Patterson, was substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect on the accused.

“His Honour considered that a finding that the respondent deliberately poisoned the four lunch guests would create a very significant risk of the jurors misusing or overvaluing the evidence in relation to the charges concerning the events allegedly relating to Simon Patterson."

25. Would the jurors in the present case be as rigorous in applying the criminal standard of proof as they should be, if they formed the view that the accused had deliberately and fatally poisoned Simon Patterson’s mother, father and aunt and had deliberately and nearly fatally poisoned his uncle? Would the jurors be able to dispassionately assess the evidence specific to Charges 1–3 and pay full heed to the limitations of the medical evidence regarding the possible causes of Simon Patterson’s severe illnesses. Moreover, would the jurors be able to resist rank propensity reasoning such as ‘he deliberately poisoned Simon Patterson’s parents, uncle and aunty: isn’t it likely, then, that she deliberately poisoned Simon Patterson?’ All of these dangers or risks could, of course, be the subject of directions, but the guiding principle that jurors can generally be trusted to abide by directions admits of exceptions. Even if the impugned evidence is credited with significant probative value, I am not persuaded that its probative value substantially outweighs the significant danger or risk of unfair prejudice to the accused.

26. As agreed by the parties, my ruling that the coincidence evidence is inadmissible means that there must be two trials — one in respect of Charges 1–3 and one in respect of Charges 4–7. Pursuant to s 193 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), I order severance of the indictment as it would be unfair to hear all the charges together.

R v Patterson (Ruling 6) [2025] VSC 108 (14 March 2025)

1. I also consider that the evidence of Events 1, 2 and 3 is inadmissible as coincidence evidence in proof of the fact that Donald Patterson, Gail Patterson, Ian Wilkinson and Heather Wilkinson were deliberately poisoned. Since the cause of Simon Patterson’s gastrointestinal disturbance is indeterminable, and the fact that he fell ill after consuming food prepared by the respondent is no proof that he was poisoned, the facts founding charges 1, 2 and 3 cannot properly be considered coincidence evidence capable of going in proof of charges 4, 5, 6 and 7. In my view, in order to use the events founding charges 1, 2 and 3 in proof of the disputed fact on charges 4, 5, 6 and 7, it must first be assumed that the respondent deliberately poisoned Simon Patterson. But in circumstances where the cause of his gastrointestinal disturbance cannot be determined, to endeavour to use the evidence in that way would be fallacious. It would involve circular reasoning, permitting impermissible speculation to displace legitimate inference. Plainly, in my view, the evidence does not have significant probative value, substantially outweighing any prejudicial effect it would have on the respondent.

The decision to drop the charges was based on the lack of evidence proving the cause/s of Simons illness. This was the right decision to make as without a clear cause being determined we are at risk of prejudicial speculation.

https://jade.io/article/src/1146363/2960932

 

[packetgravy]

25. Would the jurors in the present case be as rigorous in applying the criminal standard of proof as they should be, if they formed the view that the accused had deliberately and fatally poisoned Simon Patterson’s mother, father and aunt and had deliberately and nearly fatally poisoned his uncle? Would the jurors be able to dispassionately assess the evidence specific to Charges 1–3 and pay full heed to the limitations of the medical evidence regarding the possible causes of Simon Patterson’s severe illnesses. Moreover, would the jurors be able to resist rank propensity reasoning such as ‘he deliberately poisoned Simon Patterson’s parents, uncle and aunty: isn’t it likely, then, that she deliberately poisoned Simon Patterson?’ All of these dangers or risks could, of course, be the subject of directions, but the guiding principle that jurors can generally be trusted to abide by directions admits of exceptions. Even if the impugned evidence is credited with significant probative value, I am not persuaded that its probative value substantially outweighs the significant danger or risk of unfair prejudice to the accused.

26. As agreed by the parties, my ruling that the coincidence evidence is inadmissible means that there must be two trials — one in respect of Charges 1–3 and one in respect of Charges 4–7. Pursuant to s 193 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), I order severance of the indictment as it would be unfair to hear all the charges together.

R v Patterson (Ruling 6) [2025] VSC 108 (14 March 2025)

Charges have been dropped, prejudicial assessment is a potential risk/result of the lack of evidence regarding the poisonings of Simon.

“…the source of Simon Patterson’s gastrointestinal disturbance is empirically undeterminable, any such inference would be weak.”

https://jade.io/article/src/1146363/2960932