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

[Tortoise]

Interesting. I'll take a closer look.

I recommend watching it on 0.25 speed to see it more clearly.

 

[MIG214222]

Let's say 1.5 million for Defence, 1.5 million for Prosecution. At least 3 million all up, probably more.

If only she had cancelled her lunch guests, and eaten alone.

IF *only* @Monstradamus - IF *only*!

The *one* thing I'm grateful for that little-ms-tight-a never lifted a finger earning - of her 'privileged' wealth, (as it's been portrayed) - is we've got the Mandy TikTok, created by a Genius, it's beyond horrific the rc of how & why it exists.
MOMO

 

[Deleted member 363451]

I’m sorry you’ve had that experience Jess

 

[Warshawski]

I don’t see an issue with taxes funding the imprisonment of murderers.

I do.
I’d much rather they be used to fund the needs of the good people in our community - to feed the hungry, educate our kids, provide much needed health services, treatments etc.

 

[Tortoise]

Which then brings me to motive, if the other parcel containing toxins was indeed her own.

Everyone but Simon, don’t forget that part.
She said herself she would have fed him a beef Wellington had he attended the lunch… that did not contain toxins.

She also said she DID serve the others beef Wellingtons containing toxins.

You've taken her words out of context.

"“If he’d come I would have given him a beef Wellington too, yes, but not one with death cap mushrooms in it intentionally,” Patterson said."

Mushroom cook opens up on lies to police, in-laws | Canberra CityNews

Erin Patterson lied to her in-laws about cancer tests before cooking them a deadly lunch because they made her "feel loved", she has told a jury.

citynews.com.au

BBM

 

[Deleted member 363451]

Which then brings me to motive, if the other parcel containing toxins was indeed her own.

Everyone but Simon, don’t forget that part.
She said herself she would have fed him a beef Wellington had he attended the lunch… that did not contain toxins.

She also said she DID serve the others beef Wellingtons containing toxins.

Erin said a lot of things, mainly lies...

 

[Tortoise]

Phone A?

I think it's smaller than a phone.

 

[packetgravy]

You've taken her words out of context.

"“If he’d come I would have given him a beef Wellington too, yes, but not one with death cap mushrooms in it intentionally,” Patterson said."

Mushroom cook opens up on lies to police, in-laws | Canberra CityNews

Erin Patterson lied to her in-laws about cancer tests before cooking them a deadly lunch because they made her "feel loved", she has told a jury.

citynews.com.au

BBM

That’s because the others contained death caps, intentionally.

 

[Tortoise]

That’s because the others contained death caps, intentionally.

No, she didn't admit to poisoning the food intentionally. These were her words you were making reference to.

 

[packetgravy]

No, she didn't admit to poisoning the food intentionally. These were her words you were making reference to.

That’s correct, I am interpreting her dialogue in a literal sense (although this was not her intention.)

 

[Tortoise]

Interesting. I'll take a closer look.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Tortoise]

That’s correct, I am interpreting her dialogue in a literal sense (although this was not her intention.)

A literal interpretation of her words would be she would have poisoned him unintentionally.

 

[packetgravy]

A literal interpretation of her words would be she would have poisoned him unintentionally.

On the contrary, a literal interpretation would be she would not poison the Wellington for Simon intentionally. I focused on the exact words used and their direct meaning, rather than any implied or suggested meaning.

Remember, she was being charged with intentionally poisoning the others.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

On the contrary, a literal interpretation would be she did not poison the Wellington left for Simon intentionally. I focused on the exact words used and their direct meaning, rather than any implied or suggest meaning.

So if your thinking is correct, why would she poison Simon's family and not him? For revenge?

 

[packetgravy]

So if your thinking is correct, why would she poison Simon's family and not him? For revenge?

And herself*

 

[Tortoise]

On the contrary, a literal interpretation would be she did not poison the Wellington left for Simon intentionally. I focused on the exact words used and their direct meaning, rather than any implied or suggested meaning.

Remember, she was being charged with intentionally poisoning the others.

Yes, those were her words. 'Not intentionally' is not implied or suggested, it means without intention, it doesn't mean without poison.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

And herself*

She didn't want him...

 

[Penny68]

I think it's smaller than a phone.

I am wondering if it is a bankcard holder. Just when she came out of the toilet she put the keys into her right hand, to allow then her left to be free to touch, as she did, the sandwiches on display.

Just when she was at the till she didn't appear to be rummaging in her over body bag for means to pay for what she bought.

Looking closer it looked like she slightly bent backwards away from the counter to then I feel she put the bankcard holder into the opened bag.

 

[packetgravy]

Yes, those were her words. 'Not intentionally' is not implied or suggested, it means without intention, it doesn't mean without poison.

With a literal interpretation you must focus on the words exactly. She did not say “not intentionally” she said “intentionally” which means “with intention.”

“If he’d come I would have given him a beef Wellington too, yes, but not one with death cap mushrooms in it intentionally,”

 

[MaxDecimus13]

I am yet to form a solid theory for the events following the lunch. Based on the available evidence and imo:

•Erin had no intention of hiding the leftovers
•Erin did not dispose of the plates
•The leftovers contained two parcels, one parcel did not contain toxins. We will call this “Parcel A”
•Imo the steak was removed from Parcel A and fed to her children
•Imo Parcel A was originally meant for Simon

I am unable to source a toxicology report containing the results for a meat sample from Parcel A. If anyone has this information I would appreciate it.

One hole I’m finding challenging is motive. I’ve played with the idea Simon had perhaps found a new love interest (or Erin at least believed he had) but surely this would have been confirmed or denied at this stage.





Catch me out for what?

I can see how it would appear I am picking holes. Occasionally speculation doesn’t track when I examine the evidence/the legal documents and I mostly reference these.



An incredible oversight, so much so I simply don’t believe the leftovers were a “plant.”

Catch me out was the wrong term, I meant more it was a genuine question not a combatative one. I wasn't doing a 'well how do you explain that then?' type of question.

As for motive, much rests on whether she had tried to poison Simon previously. If so, and it does seem very likely, then I'd argue it's likely quite straightforward. She hates him and wants him out of her life. This trial is one thing, but they had a many year relationship that we cannot realistically know much about. Maybe for her, the recent events were simply the last straw in a line of perceived grievances and she decided the best way would be to remove him from the picture.

If that poisoning is true, then it at least creates possible motives for the 29th July. I currently think it was still to get at Simon, and that maybe she realised when he pulled out that she wasn't going to be able to pin him down. As revenge or in anger she decided to poison the rest.

If she didn't poison Simon, then we'd have to consider more extreme and bizarre motives.