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

[MaxDecimus13]

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.

Before this can be fully speculated on, I'd like to know more about how good the tests are. The only reason I say this is because we know some of the deceased never tested positive for poisoning and yet we know they were poisoned. Are the samples simply too small to pick it up every time?

If they are more reliable than this and therefore there was a full BW without any poison in it, then it is right to enquire what she was playing at.

I've never fully discounted the idea that she didn't expect they would all get as sick as they did, and she got the dosage wrong. This was always based on the idea that killing 4 people would have always been hard to explain. A more mixed bag, with some dying and some getting ill (into which she fit in with her diahorrea) would have been easier to explain as a tragic accident. Who knows, had Simon attended maybe one other guest would have been given a non-poisoned BW as well.

It's all pure speculation of course, and we'll never fully know what she intended. If however, she did intend to kill 5 people in cold blood, which most people believe, another full BW without any poison is something that would need explaining.

 

[Moll]

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,”

I have come to the conclusion that this is an AI bot that's been programmed to be annoying.

 

[MaxDecimus13]

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

Hmmm she is definitely holding something small and black, that isn't in her hand when she leaves the bathroom.

 

[Tortoise]

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,”

So you're saying she meant 'I would have intentionally given Simon a beef Wellington without death cap mushrooms'?

Why would she have meant to say that, in your opinion, and why do you think she intended to answer that question, according to you, honestly, but lie about her intention as regards poisoning his family?

 

[Moll]

So you're saying she meant 'I would have intentionally given Simon a beef Wellington without death cap mushrooms'?

Why would she have meant to say that, in your opinion, and why do you think she intended to answer that question, according to you, honestly, but lie about her intention as regards poisoning his family?

Heroic but futile, in my opinion, Tortoise!

 

[packetgravy]

So you're saying she meant 'I would have intentionally given Simon a beef Wellington without death cap mushrooms'?

Why would she have meant to say that, in your opinion, and why do you think she intended to answer that question, according to you, honestly, but lie about her intention as regards poisoning his family?

I can’t answer that for you, I truly don’t know why Erin chooses to lie about some things and not about others.

I shared a theory, a supposition to explain a series of events surrounded in mystery.

 

[Tortoise]

I can’t answer that for you, I truly don’t know why Erin chooses to lie about some things and not about others.

I shared a theory, a supposition to explain a series of events surrounded in mystery.

There is no evidence that she tells the truth.

 

[packetgravy]

Before this can be fully speculated on, I'd like to know more about how good the tests are. The only reason I say this is because we know some of the deceased never tested positive for poisoning and yet we know they were poisoned. Are the samples simply too small to pick it up every time?

If they are more reliable than this and therefore there was a full BW without any poison in it, then it is right to enquire what she was playing at.

I've never fully discounted the idea that she didn't expect they would all get as sick as they did, and she got the dosage wrong. This was always based on the idea that killing 4 people would have always been hard to explain. A more mixed bag, with some dying and some getting ill (into which she fit in with her diahorrea) would have been easier to explain as a tragic accident. Who knows, had Simon attended maybe one other guest would have been given a non-poisoned BW as well.

It's all pure speculation of course, and we'll never fully know what she intended. If however, she did intend to kill 5 people in cold blood, which most people believe, another full BW without any poison is something that would need explaining.

From what I understand, testing humans is going to be tricky and not always accurate due to the way toxins are filtered through our unique bodily functions. Some substances are cleared out a lot faster than others.

I don’t believe all the tests were executed in the recommended timeframe for the victims, let alone at exactly the same time. Even if they were, it would have likely been futile due to their ages, pre-existing conditions and overall health.

I believe the DNA testing on the Wellingtons was likely the most accurate results available.

MOO.

 

[ch_13]

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.

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.

Again, I think you're playing with words here. It's clear from the context that Erin was saying that she didn't poison anyone intentionally, so she wouldn't poison Simon intentionally. She quite literally said that under direct examination:

Defence barrister Colin Mandy SC asked if she had ever “intentionally picked death cap mushrooms” to which she said “no”.

She denied intentionally including the toxic fungi in the beef Wellingtons.

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

You are twisting her words to claim that she admitted poisoning the others, but wouldn't have poisoned Simon. If your fallback position will be that you did not literally say that, just heavily insinuated it, you are just doing the same thing you did previously with Heather and the striped plate.

What is the point of constantly misrepresenting the testimony and evidence from the trial?

 

[packetgravy]

Again, I think you're playing with words here. It's clear from the context that Erin was saying that she didn't poison anyone intentionally, so she wouldn't poison Simon intentionally. She quite literally said that under direct examination:

Defence barrister Colin Mandy SC asked if she had ever “intentionally picked death cap mushrooms” to which she said “no”.

She denied intentionally including the toxic fungi in the beef Wellingtons.

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

You are twisting her words to claim that she admitted poisoning the others, but wouldn't have poisoned Simon. If your fallback position will be that you did not literally say that, just heavily insinuated it, you are just doing the same thing you did previously with Heather and the striped plate.

What is the point of constantly misrepresenting the testimony and evidence from the trial?

Is there some confusion as to what a “theory” is and what it involves?

Taking the quote in a literal sense is doing the opposite of “playing on words.”

When Heather mentioned “coloured” plates for example and I took that to mean the colourful “striped plates,” you felt this to be a play on words due to Heather not using the exact words “striped plates.”

Erin did not dispute feeding her guests death caps, she lied about it being an accident.

In terms of the theory I shared, this involves taking Erin’s quote above in the literal sense.

There is no misrepresentation in theory based on personal interpretation (which is highly subjective.) Theorising does require an amount of “filling in the gaps.”

 

[Jake18]

Colonoscopy, thank you.

They would have been looking for more than just bowl disease if this is the case.

I was trying to determine what the tests were, as this gives an idea of the symptoms he was experiencing. Colonoscopies are just one line of testing, if nothing is found then an endocrinologist might arrange further testing to rule out other conditions (such as breath testing etc.)

Imo.

I think you’re getting your medical specialists a bit mixed up. And - breath testing for H pylori is usually done before endoscopy, (gastroscopy, not colonoscopy) given it’s not invasive. But a positive H Pylori breath test isn’t definitive - some people, especially children, can be asymptomaticaly colonised. The scope is definitive

 

[ch_13]

When Heather mentioned “coloured” plates for example and I took that to mean the colourful “striped plates,” you felt this to be a play on words due to Heather not using the exact words “striped plates.”

Theorizing is fine. But my objection is to you misrepresenting what Heather said.

She kept the striped plate, which Heather spoke about before heading to hospital.

Heather spoke about a colored plate, not a striped plate. When called on it, you fell back on a legalism.

I said she kept the striped plate, which Heather spoke about. I did not say Heather specifically used the words “striped plate.”

You could have written, "Heather spoke about a colored plate. And this striped plate could be what she described." But you didn't. And then later you did something similar with Erin's testimony about the Wellington meant for Simon.

Using artful language to fudge trial testimony just gets tiresome and leads to needless side discussions where every statement requires fact-checking.

 

[packetgravy]

I think you’re getting your medical specialists a bit mixed up. And - breath testing for H pylori is usually done before endoscopy, (gastroscopy, not colonoscopy) given it’s not invasive. But a positive H Pylori breath test isn’t definitive - some people, especially children, can be asymptomaticaly colonised. The scope is definitive

I have been through all three procedures, colonoscopy was first due to acute onset symptoms and severe weight loss.

I would say it depends on the patients immediate presenting symptoms as to what route the specialist takes.

Breath testing for me personally was arranged over three seperate appointments, h-pylori being tested for during one of those appointments.

 

[packetgravy]

Theorizing is fine. But my objection is to you misrepresenting what Heather said.


Heather spoke about a colored plate, not a striped plate. When called on it, you fell back on a legalism.


You could have written, "Heather spoke about a colored plate. And this striped plate could be what she described." But you didn't. And then later you did something similar with Erin's testimony about the Wellington meant for Simon.

Using artful language to fudge trial testimony just gets tiresome and leads to needless side discussions where every statement requires fact-checking.

When called on it, I apologised and explained how I came to that interpretation of Heathers words. As below.

My apologies for the confusion.

I referenced the striped plate after reading the witness testimony as I could not identify any other plate which fit the description.

This is hardly artful language, which is not my strength by any stretch of the imagination.

Theorising does not require fact checking unless scientific (imo) so the demand for this is unnecessary but unsurprising.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

I can’t answer that for you, I truly don’t know why Erin chooses to lie about some things and not about others.

I shared a theory, a supposition to explain a series of events surrounded in mystery.

She was charged with intentionally poisoning the others, but she never admitted that she intentionally did it.

 

[Deleted member 363451]

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

She NEVER admitted she poisoned the others intentionally.

 

[packetgravy]

She was charged with intentionally poisoning the others, but she never admitted that she intentionally did it.

Yes, I don’t dispute that.

 

[packetgravy]

She NEVER admitted she poisoned the others intentionally.

Yes, I don’t dispute that.

 

[Jake18]

I have been through all three procedures, colonoscopy was first due to acute onset symptoms and severe weight loss.

I would say it depends on the patients immediate presenting symptoms as to what route the specialist takes.

Breath testing for me personally was arranged over three seperate appointments, h-pylori being tested for during one of those appointments.

Yes, but an endocrinologist won’t be overseeing a breath test, will they?

If Erin poisoned Simon with different items every time, he would have had variable symptoms, but most ingested poisons will be GI irritants.

I wonder who else’s food Erin was messing with?

 

[packetgravy]

Yes, but an endocrinologist won’t be overseeing a breath test, will they?

If Erin poisoned Simon with different items every time, he would have had variable symptoms, but most ingested poisons will be GI irritants.

I wonder who else’s food Erin was messing with?

It depends! As an example, they may be involved if symptoms have been linked to underlying endocrine conditions (such as diabetes.)

I assume it would be a case by case basis and a matter of ruling things out will depend on the order of testing.