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

[Detechtive]

The owner of a mushroom business in the Adelaide Central Markets says there has been a significant drop in sales in the past two years, as a result of the Erin Patterson arrest and conviction.

“When it first hit the media, industrywide across Australia, most growers were reporting between 15 and 20 per cent drop in sales,” he said.

“The staff were getting a little bit annoyed with the number of people asking, ‘oh, have you got any death caps’.

“It’s just one of those cases that really caught people’s imagination.

“Part of the problem was the way it was presented and the way she (Patterson) presented it, made it seem like they were mushrooms that could have been bought anywhere, which obviously they weren’t.”

Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at the University of Adelaide, Dr Ian Musgrave said death cap mushrooms contained a group of toxins called amitoxins.

“What this does is stop your body from making the messenger RNA necessary to make proteins,” he said.

“It basically shuts down all the functions in your body.”

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/mushroom-sales-dropping-after-mass-killer-erin-patterson-mushroom-murders/news-story/2a46d78f84973c8df15cff414acfb92f

 

[dothetime]

And also to write his book, IMO. Those transcripts would cost $15k+++

Yes, court transcripts are expensive. In 2010, after a three days of a final hearing in the Family Court of Australia, I considered getting the transcripts, but the cost was close to $1k at that time. I decided to let it go, although a record of my 'vindication' would have been good to have!

 

[Monstradamus]

She is extraordinarily manipulative and cunning. She managed to convince an entire group of (semi) educated women of her complete, utter, lies very quickly. I mean, completely made up character assassinations of people - based on zero evidence.
I was stunned that she was so successful at this at the time, I have never seen anything like it before.
In hindsight, I can see that she preyed upon weak women who are the type to be disciples, but at the time, I was shocked at her swift ability to be able to manipulate complete narratives in the face of opposing evidence.
The gaslighting, the stalking, the incessant bombardment of 'fake identities' she had created to solidify her position was astounding and off the charts psychotic. She had spent months/years on this task and it was relentless.

I really feel for Simon. He hasn't been able to cleanly separate from her because she holds the most precious "tool" (in her mind) to manipulate him with - his children. I can't even imagine how confusing this would have been for him.

IMO

She was very effective with her "craft". Enabled by her followers, she gained strength in numbers and enjoyed the audience.

Belittling others made her feel powerful in her lonely, inadequate fantasy world.

She's nothing but a bully. IMO.

Queen of Sheba no more.

 

[packetgravy]

@packetgravy which evidence presented at trial did you find particularly powerful in convicting Erin?

This is tricky without access to the transcripts.

I (mostly) remain impartial until the jury have delivered the verdict which is why I’m late to the discussion! Taking a breather from my usual perspective for less restrictive theorising is my fave thing to do post trial so we here are…

Erin Patterson was the most influential catalyst in the trial and conviction of Erin Patterson.

It wasn’t a complicated case to begin with, even with vastly circumstantial evidence. Erin set the groundwork for the verdict long before the meal was made.

I am happy to discuss further but I’d be surprised if you didn’t understand what I meant by that. If I had to pick the top most damming evidence in this trial…. it’s Erin.

Oh come on, not having $10m is hardly an abnormal financial situation. I’m sure condolences aren’t necessary

I was being facetious.

 

[packetgravy]

What this is saying is that the pre-lunch alleged poisonings of Simon cannot be used as coincidence evidence to prove the lunch poisonings of the others. Had the prosecution not wanted to use it as coincidence evidence, what then?

Consider what they might have said if Simon had toxicology results proving he had ingested poisons. I still think they would have said it was prejudicial in determining her intent as regards the others. More so in fact.

But what if the prosecution had not wanted to use the evidence of any one single incident as coincidence evidence to prove the other charges? It doesn't make sense in their ruling that effectively Simon can never attempt to get justice for alleged crimes against him. If he had a trial now the same facts of the, now proven, lunch poisonings would still be highly prejudicial, as coincidence evidence. Juries have to be trusted to be able to consider multiple alleged crimes on their own merits. I think the court of appeal ruling was, to use their own description, fallacious.

There was more than just several indetermined bouts of critical illness after eating Erin's food to consider. There was -

1/ The ruling out of other usual causes (gastro) and the damage it did to his organs and the fact it was life-threatening and he was usually healthy, not a vulnerable, elderly or immune-compromised person.
2/ The fact that it never happened to Simon in 50-odd years of his whole life when he ate apart from Erin.
3/ The fact they were separated and these were attempts at holidaying together, on their first nights, when she really didn't want to reconcile because she booted him out shortly afterwards and was messaging people about hating him.
4/ His food was kept separate and distinguishable from hers, plus the children were kept separate.
5/ She had searches on her devices for poisons.
6/ He had spoken to his doctor and his parents about his suspicions of her poisoning him before the fatal lunch.
7/ He had prepared a spreadsheet for his doctor and changed his medical power of attorney (if that's the right
terminology).
8/ He avoided eating her food after that and declined the invitation to the lunch even when he considered she could be terminally ill, because he was no longer prepared to take that risk.
9/ Erin never got sick.
10/ Erin apparently didn't want to co-parent, and she didn't want to divorce either.

IMO

Yes, I have read the document in its entirety, along with maybe (7?) others in relation to the trial.

Yes, the prejudicial assessment goes both ways.

Due to the lack of evidence to support Simons illnesses being a direct result of poisoning, this could have substantially sabotaged the outcome of the murder trial.

On the other hand, had the charges for the attempts on Simon gone to trial, the risk of prejudicial assessment was too great following a conviction of Erin.

No matter how we flip it, it looks the same on either side. There is simply a lack of evidence to support the case and uphold a trial.

The third and fourth charges regarding Simon and examined by Professor Bersten were identified as potentially secondary in relation to the illness described in the second charge.

 

[MIG214222]

1. Links ARE a general expectation for all members - except VIs?

{{butting in here @Detechtive - hope you don't mind}}

Hello @packetgravy,

1. To answer your question, in one word, yes.

• The *best*, most comprehensive guide is the Rules, the following paragraph: The Rules, Best Practices, Dealing with your fellow posters is pertinent to the discussion:

Misinformation

Mods are not sitting in each and every one of the thousands of WS case discussions to know the fine details of every single case. They do not have time to research whether what you say is true or what the other member says is true. If you believe something is misinformation, please don't use the Report feature to complain about it. Work it out through respectful discussion on the thread. Just post why you feel something is incorrect and provide links to back up what you believe is the correct information.

Clearly - here - you'll say - the onus is on the 'complainer' to provide the links, but no, in the media rules - which I also encourage a read of - the links issue is discussed. There's several topics in Rules that cover media so I'll leave it to (you) to research.

• For the inside info on VIs please read: Verified Professional and Insider Members.
• Also, without a link the outcome *may* be a post will be deleted due to no source provided, or any other number of reasons - especially IF the author of the post does not MOO, IMO, IMHO, DUMO, SUMO or some other abbrev to support what's been posted, so on that happy note I'll MO, myself out of the discussion.

Edit, added info about Media rule(s) & corrected numbering, clock has struck midnight, I just pumpkinised & I OBJECT! There's no pumpkin emoji!

 

[MaxDecimus13]

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 would have known that they would be looking for leftovers when they got ill. It would have looked more suspicious had she have disposed of literally everything.

In fact, it is arguably more suspicious that there was one in there that was without any of the poison.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

What is your personal opinion of Erin Patterson?

I'm not sure why you feel the need to do this often.

People can have different opinions without having ulterior sinister motives.

 

[ch_13]

Nope.


We are barking up the same tree bud, mine is just the downloadable version

The same records, the same quotes, the same ruling and the same legal process that inevitably concluded in the decision to drop the charges.

No, it's an important distinction. The prosecution chose to drop the charges as a strategic decision. That's not at all the same as the charges being dropped by court order.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

I'm not sure why you feel the need to do this often.

People can have different opinions without having ulterior sinister motives.

Do it often? It's the first time I've ever asked it.

 

[iamshadow21]

Ricin is considered very toxic although castor beans were used as a laxative.

Bulgarian dissident Georgy Markov was allegedly killed by it

Georgi Markov - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Hemlock is toxic. I read about it today - it smells like mouse urine so bolognese and curry may not be enough to mask it. But Simon’s symptoms are similar.

What about hellebore? It grows in the gardens but if eaten, can be toxic. “burning of the mouth and throat, salivation, vomiting, abdominal cramping, diarrhea, nervous symptoms, and possibly depression. Consuming large quantities of hellebore plants can be fatal”.

One wonders if Simon liked spicy food like bolognese or curry? If not too much, maybe she used spicy food because the poison had taste or smell?

Well, as all of us who followed the trial know, dried deathcaps also smell strongly of ammonia. And she managed to get them in there anyway.

It's all about choosing the right dish to mask that and presenting it in such a way that the recipient feels obligated to or has no choice but to eat it.

MOO

 

[Sillybilly]

I think I see where you are getting confused. You may have sourced the doc from the office of public prosecutions, but they aren't the ones who authored it. It was authored by the Supreme Court of Victoria. All the quotes you reference come from them.

View attachment 609204

It's right there on the title page. The Director of Public Prosecutions is the appellant, meaning the person who filed the appeal. The document itself was authored by the court, specifically Judges Forrest and Emerton.

And the decision of the court was that the trial judge was correct about severing the trials. I've circled it in red. After this, the decision was made to drop charges 1-3, but that was not determined by the court.

View attachment 609205
And again, the document's conclusion discusses severing the trials. Nowhere in this document do they talk about dropping the charges, because that wasn't in the purview of the appeals court.

Please provide a link to source for the above attachments.

Thanks !!

 

[tillytatler]

Well, as all of us who followed the trial know, dried deathcaps also smell strongly of ammonia. And she managed to get them in there anyway.

It's all about choosing the right dish to mask that and presenting it in such a way that the recipient feels obligated to or has no choice but to eat it.

MOO

I think hemlock would be pretty easily discussed in curry or tbh any dish. It's a close relative of celery and parsley and smells (likely also tastes) similar, though not particularly strong smelling. Once cooked down I doubt you'd notice it much. That said I think you'd need a lot OF it to do damage, at which point texture would be more of an issue if anything.

Source: am forager, in UK, hemlock and its almost identical cousin cow parsley are very common here.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

If members have a question about verification or WS rules, please use the Report feature to ask Mods or Admins for clarification rather than derail the thread with matters that do not relate to the case under discussion.

Verified members do not have to provide links to their area of expertise or involvement. Other than that, they are held to the same standard as regular members.

Examples:

If you are WS verified as a lawyer, you do not have to provide links to what you state about legal issues, but you would have to provide links to what you state as fact in all other matters outside of the legal profession.

If you are WS verified as a family member or a friend, you do not have to provide links to what you state as fact about your relationship with the parties, but you still must provide links to matters that are separate and apart from that personal relationship (i.e. legal matters or other issues that require specific expertise).

If that does not clarify, please use the Report feature to enquire.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Regardless, her convictions cannot be raised in a trial. They can only be considered in the sentencing phase if found guilty (again).

That said, she is now so globally infamous as the Mushroom Murderer * that only a modern Rip Van Winkle would be unaware of her criminal convictions.

(* She could claim that she's never actually murdered a mushroom.)

We would need specialist legal advice to know whether it's true that her conviction cannot be taken into consideration IMO.

 

[ch_13]

Please provide a link to source for the above attachments.

Thanks !!

The link was in the post I quoted. I simply took screenshots of the linked document and circled the relevant parts in red to make my point clear.

 

[LinasK]

Ricin is considered very toxic although castor beans were used as a laxative.

Bulgarian dissident Georgy Markov was allegedly killed by it

Georgi Markov - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Hemlock is toxic. I read about it today - it smells like mouse urine so bolognese and curry may not be enough to mask it. But Simon’s symptoms are similar.

What about hellebore? It grows in the gardens but if eaten, can be toxic. “burning of the mouth and throat, salivation, vomiting, abdominal cramping, diarrhea, nervous symptoms, and possibly depression. Consuming large quantities of hellebore plants can be fatal”.

One wonders if Simon liked spicy food like bolognese or curry? If not too much, maybe she used spicy food because the poison had taste or smell?

More than one of her previous attempts she DID make him Bolognese and Curry.

 

[drsleuth]

Re Patterson [2025] VSC 478 (8 August 2025)​

IN THE MATTER of an application for a proceeding suppression order

and IN THE MATTER of an application for the release of an exhibit

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT	8 August 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Patterson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 478

RELEASE OF EXHIBIT — Application by media for release of trial exhibit, namely, edited audiovisual recording ofoffender’s police interview — Where offender opposes release and publication of exhibit — Where key aspects of prosecution’s case were lies told in interview, allegedly constituting incriminating conduct— ABC v Victoria Police & Gardiner [2020] VSC 599 —ABC v Victoria Police & Kehoe [2020] VSC 410 — R vHemming [2015] VSC 351 — In Films v Victoria Police & Gant [2022] VSC 159 — An application by Nine Network Pty Ltd [2016] VSC158 — R v Reed-Robertson [2016] VSC 236 — DPP v Williams(Ruling No 1) (2015) 51 VR 408 — Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss464JA, 464JB.



Introduction

1. Thisjudgment concerns two applications.
2. [REDACTED]
3. Second,an application by certain media outlets for the release of Exhibit 63, namely,the edited audiovisual recording of Ms Patterson's police interview.

Background

1. [REDACTED]
2. [REDACTED]
3. [REDACTED]
4. [REDACTED]
5. [REDACTED]

Submissions

Erin Patterson

1. [REDACTED]

Prosecution

1. [REDACTED]

Media Outlets

1. [REDACTED]

Analysis

1. [REDACTED]
2. [REDACTED]
3. [REDACTED]
4. [REDACTED]
5. [REDACTED]

Application by Media for Release/Publication of Exhibit 63 (Edited Audio visual Recording of Police Interview)

Background

1. I turn then to the application by the media for the release of Exhibit 63, namely the edited audiovisual recording of Ms Patterson's police interview on 5August 2023.

Submissions

MediaOutlets

1. Turning to submissions, the media outlets referred me to a number of cases and submitted the following,having regard to Hollingworth J’s criteria;

(a) The only significant privacy concern might be the children, but references to their names could be redacted;
(b) That Ms Patterson's opposition to release and publication was not determinative;

(c) That the attitude of the victims and victims’ families should be ascertained;

(d) That there were no other criminal trials in respect of Ms Patterson

(e) That release and publication would not undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process;
(f) That the level of contemporaneous public interest in Ms Patterson's case is a powerful consideration in favour of release/publication;

(g) That publishing the recording would enhance the fair and accurate reporting of the case;

(h) The principle of open justice supports release/publication;

(i) That the application is made by established media players who have acted responsibly in the course of reporting on Ms Patterson's case, unlike some others.

Erin Patterson

1. Ms Patterson indicated on 8 July 2025 that she opposed the release of Exhibit 63 to the media.

• Relying on what Cummins J said in DPP vThomas, Ms Patterson submitted that publication of Exhibit 63 could deter suspects from participating in audiovisual recorded police interviews.
• Ms Patterson also submitted that reporting of the trial had not been fair and accurate. It was implied that the use of the recording might also be unfair and inaccurate.

Prosecution

1. A part from drawing my attention to the case of Kehoe, the prosecution simply submitted that the attitude of the victims and victims’ families was a relevant consideration but was unknown.
2. On the 6 August 2025, the prosecution advised the court by email that ‘We have conversed with the family available and can confirm that they do not take any view regarding the release of the record of interview to the media’.
3. On the 7 August 2025, the prosecution further advised the court by email that Simon Patterson has requested that, if the court is minded to release the offender’s record of interview, the children’s names be blanked out in order to avoid any accidental playing of those names by the media outlets’

Analysis

1. Turning to my analysis, a key part of the prosecution case was alleged incriminating conduct by Ms Patterson during the course of her recorded interview. Ms Patterson admitted at her trial that she lied to police in the recording about not foraging for mushrooms,not dehydrating food and not having a dehydrator but denied that this amounted to incriminating conduct. Rather, she argued she lied from fear of being wrongly accused of committing the alleged offences. The prosecution submitted that the only reasonable explanation for these lies— and other conduct — was that she believed she was guilty of the charged offences. The prosecution also submitted that she lied about her telephone number in the recording, which Ms Patterson denied: the prosecution relied on this too as incriminating conduct.
2. The importance of these lies to the prosecution case, and the strong contemporaneous public interest in this case, militate strongly in favour of the release and publication of Exhibit 63, as does the principle of open justice. I also accept the media’s submission that it will promote fair and accurate reporting.Rather than having to depend on interpretations of the recording by journalists and commentators, the public will be better placed to make their own assessments of the significance of Ms Patterson's answers in the recording, having regard to both the content of her answers and her demeanour.
3. The absence of any graphic details in the recording also supports release/publication.
4. The victims and victims’ family do not oppose release and publication. Redactions can be made in the interests of Ms Patterson's children’s privacy. Given all the publicity to date about Ms Patterson and her trial, her privacy will not be significantly affected by release/publication of the recording.
5. The above matters in my view outweigh any risk of other suspects being deterred from participating in police interviews because of fear of publication of their interviews.

Re Patterson [2025] VSC 478 (8 August 2025)

===============================================================

Poor Erin didn't want the world to see her police interview or deterr others from participting in a police interview

 

[JBowie]

Re Patterson [2025] VSC 478 (8 August 2025)​

IN THE MATTER of an application for a proceeding suppression order

and IN THE MATTER of an application for the release of an exhibit

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT	8 August 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Patterson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 478

RELEASE OF EXHIBIT — Application by media for release of trial exhibit, namely, edited audiovisual recording ofoffender’s police interview — Where offender opposes release and publication of exhibit — Where key aspects of prosecution’s case were lies told in interview, allegedly constituting incriminating conduct— ABC v Victoria Police & Gardiner [2020] VSC 599 —ABC v Victoria Police & Kehoe [2020] VSC 410 — R vHemming [2015] VSC 351 — In Films v Victoria Police & Gant [2022] VSC 159 — An application by Nine Network Pty Ltd [2016] VSC158 — R v Reed-Robertson [2016] VSC 236 — DPP v Williams(Ruling No 1) (2015) 51 VR 408 — Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss464JA, 464JB.



Introduction

1. Thisjudgment concerns two applications.
2. [REDACTED]
3. Second,an application by certain media outlets for the release of Exhibit 63, namely,the edited audiovisual recording of Ms Patterson's police interview.

1. [REDACTED]
2. [REDACTED]
3. [REDACTED]
4. [REDACTED]
5. [REDACTED]

1. [REDACTED]

1. [REDACTED]

1. [REDACTED]

1. [REDACTED]
2. [REDACTED]
3. [REDACTED]
4. [REDACTED]
5. [REDACTED]

Application by Media for Release/Publication of Exhibit 63 (Edited Audio visual Recording of Police Interview)

1. I turn then to the application by the media for the release of Exhibit 63, namely the edited audiovisual recording of Ms Patterson's police interview on 5August 2023.

1. Turning to submissions, the media outlets referred me to a number of cases and submitted the following,having regard to Hollingworth J’s criteria;

(d) That there were no other criminal trials in respect of Ms Patterson



(h) The principle of open justice supports release/publication;

1. Ms Patterson indicated on 8 July 2025 that she opposed the release of Exhibit 63 to the media.

• Relying on what Cummins J said in DPP vThomas, Ms Patterson submitted that publication of Exhibit 63 could deter suspects from participating in audiovisual recorded police interviews.
• Ms Patterson also submitted that reporting of the trial had not been fair and accurate. It was implied that the use of the recording might also be unfair and inaccurate.

1. A part from drawing my attention to the case of Kehoe, the prosecution simply submitted that the attitude of the victims and victims’ families was a relevant consideration but was unknown.
2. On the 6 August 2025, the prosecution advised the court by email that ‘We have conversed with the family available and can confirm that they do not take any view regarding the release of the record of interview to the media’.
3. On the 7 August 2025, the prosecution further advised the court by email that Simon Patterson has requested that, if the court is minded to release the offender’s record of interview, the children’s names be blanked out in order to avoid any accidental playing of those names by the media outlets’

1. Turning to my analysis, a key part of the prosecution case was alleged incriminating conduct by Ms Patterson during the course of her recorded interview. Ms Patterson admitted at her trial that she lied to police in the recording about not foraging for mushrooms,not dehydrating food and not having a dehydrator but denied that this amounted to incriminating conduct. Rather, she argued she lied from fear of being wrongly accused of committing the alleged offences. The prosecution submitted that the only reasonable explanation for these lies— and other conduct — was that she believed she was guilty of the charged offences. The prosecution also submitted that she lied about her telephone number in the recording, which Ms Patterson denied: the prosecution relied on this too as incriminating conduct.
2. The importance of these lies to the prosecution case, and the strong contemporaneous public interest in this case, militate strongly in favour of the release and publication of Exhibit 63, as does the principle of open justice. I also accept the media’s submission that it will promote fair and accurate reporting.Rather than having to depend on interpretations of the recording by journalists and commentators, the public will be better placed to make their own assessments of the significance of Ms Patterson's answers in the recording, having regard to both the content of her answers and her demeanour.
3. The absence of any graphic details in the recording also supports release/publication.
4. The victims and victims’ family do not oppose release and publication. Redactions can be made in the interests of Ms Patterson's children’s privacy. Given all the publicity to date about Ms Patterson and her trial, her privacy will not be significantly affected by release/publication of the recording.
5. The above matters in my view outweigh any risk of other suspects being deterred from participating in police interviews because of fear of publication of their interviews.

Re Patterson [2025] VSC 478 (8 August 2025)

===============================================================

Poor Erin didn't want the world to see her police interview or deterr others from participting in a police interview

"The importance of these lies to the prosecution case, and the strong contemporaneous public interest in this case, militate strongly in favour of the release and publication of Exhibit 63, as does the principle of open justice."

. . .

"I also accept the media’s submission that it will promote fair and accurate reporting. Rather than having to depend on interpretations of the recording by journalists and commentators, the public will be better placed to make their own assessments of the significance of Ms Patterson's answers in the recording, having regard to both the content of her answers and her demeanour." [bbm]

And what a welcome relief that is. During the trial having access to the transcripts would have saved a ton of questions here on WS.

 

[Monstradamus]

1. Ms Patterson indicated on 8 July 2025 that she opposed the release of Exhibit 63 to the media.

• Relying on what Cummins J said in DPP vThomas, Ms Patterson submitted that publication of Exhibit 63 could deter suspects from participating in audiovisual recorded police interviews.
• Ms Patterson also submitted that reporting of the trial had not been fair and accurate. It was implied that the use of the recording might also be unfair and inaccurate.

How is the media's use of the police recording going to be unfair and inaccurate?

It's her own untruthful replies that are inaccurate, and unfair to the victims.

JMO