Leongatha Mushroom Deaths - VIC *Erin Patterson charged with 3 counts of murder & 2 attempts

[faible]

2. The act caused the death Can it actually be proven what they died of/what they were poisoned with. Given death was 3 weeks later an autopsy would be inconclusive

Huh?

How a sleepy Gippsland town made global headlines after a mushroom lunch allegedly killed three guests

A beef wellington lunch allegedly led to three deaths and a small south-east Victorian community in shock. Now the host has been charged with murder. Here's how it all unfolded.

www.abc.net.au

• Saturday July 29 2023: Dinner.
• Saturday July 29 - Monday July 31: 5 people present to hospital at various points.
• Friday August 4 2023: First 2 victims die.
• Saturday August 5 2023: 3rd victim dies.
• Monday August 7 2023: Health Department confirms mushrooms were involved in the fatalities.

Victims all presented to hospital within 3 days. Not sure where your '3 weeks later' comment is from? It was 7 days or less for all 3. Seems toxicology is clear that mushrooms were involved as well.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Huh?

How a sleepy Gippsland town made global headlines after a mushroom lunch allegedly killed three guests

A beef wellington lunch allegedly led to three deaths and a small south-east Victorian community in shock. Now the host has been charged with murder. Here's how it all unfolded.

www.abc.net.au

• Saturday July 29 2023: Dinner.
• Saturday July 29 - Monday July 31: 5 people present to hospital at various points.
• Friday August 4 2023: First 2 victims die.
• Saturday August 5 2023: 3rd victim dies.
• Monday August 7 2023: Health Department confirms mushrooms were involved in the fatalities.

Victims all presented to hospital within 3 days. Not sure where your '3 weeks later' comment is from? It was 7 days or less for all 3. Seems toxicology is clear that mushrooms were involved as well.

Run n Spread said the deaths were three weeks after presumably eating the beef wellington.

Even your timeline can be confusing: It was lunch, not dinner, 4 people, not 5, went to hospital the following day and the most startling thing to me is a day you missed November 2 when Erin was arrested.
To me, Erin would seem like a prime suspect but it was only after she was arrested that police searched the house giving a huge amount of time to cover up any evidence.
Police should know they can get a search warrant!

NOVEMBER 2 Erin Patterson is arrested and taken to Wonthaggi police station for questioning. The home where the fatal lunch took place is searched by police.

I think what Run n Spread was getting at is not to jump to conclusions such as a false claim that Erin's own parents had died due to poisoning which was exposed as a lie. The pair actually died of natural causes.

 

[Irma]

Interesting tidbit that came from the hearing the other day is that the charge sheets are going to be amended relating to 3 charges of attempted murder against husband Simon, as Erin allegedly trying to kill Simon at Korumburra, Wilson’s Promontory, and Howqua. The Prom and Howqua sound like camping trips, and quite some distance from the nearest hospital. (both would probably require heli-med)

 

[Longmembrey]

Really bizarre that she has waived her right to a committal hearing. Makes me think she is not challenging any police evidence. Maybe going to just plead guilty or possibly go for a mental impairment defence

 

[Irma]

Really bizarre that she has waived her right to a committal hearing. Makes me think she is not challenging any police evidence. Maybe going to just plead guilty or possibly go for a mental impairment defence

But she was asked how she plead on each charge, and she replied Not Guilty, to all of them. That was her opportunity if she was going to just go ahead and admit guilt. So you might be right on the mental impairment bit.

I agree, it’s so odd that she wants to skip the opportunity to test the prosecutors evidence in court and try and get some things thrown out. Doesn’t that mean the defence don’t receive the brief of evidence and will be going into the trial blind?

 

[GrayRanga]

But she was asked how she plead on each charge, and she replied Not Guilty, to all of them. That was her opportunity if she was going to just go ahead and admit guilt. So you might be right on the mental impairment bit.

I agree, it’s so odd that she wants to skip the opportunity to test the prosecutors evidence in court and try and get some things thrown out. Doesn’t that mean the defence don’t receive the brief of evidence and will be going into the trial blind?

Basic rules of Natural Justice apply to Courts.

Two elements of these are the person must have adequate knowledge of the matters against them and have the ability to respond to matters.

the M'Naghten rules are common law rules that define Mental illness defences in criminal matters in Victoria ...

The party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong"

 

[Irma]

So to answer my own question… I just listened to the latest podcast episode of ‘The Mushroom Cook’, and they say:


“I think now that there's not going to be a Committal Hearing, where you test a lot of that evidence, not only do the public learn information for the first time, but the Lawyers appearing both for the prosecution and defence find out what’s being presented, so we’re surpassing that process. This means that the first time that the prosecution might hear some positions of the defence, might be at trial.”


Sorry, but from a defence point of view, isn’t that.. kinda.. bonkers? Just seems weird for someone facing 3 x murder and 5 x attempted murder charges, to go in so under-prepared for what evidence the prosecution will be throwing at them. Surely you’d want to avoid being caught off-guard, and to be ready with a counter-response for literally everything?

 

[Longmembrey]

So to answer my own question… I just listened to the latest podcast episode of ‘The Mushroom Cook’, and they say:


“I think now that there's not going to be a Committal Hearing, where you test a lot of that evidence, not only do the public learn information for the first time, but the Lawyers appearing both for the prosecution and defence find out what’s being presented, so we’re surpassing that process. This means that the first time that the prosecution might hear some positions of the defence, might be at trial.”


Sorry, but from a defence point of view, isn’t that.. kinda.. bonkers? Just seems weird for someone facing 3 x murder and 5 x attempted murder charges, to go in so under-prepared for what evidence the prosecution will be throwing at them. Surely you’d want to avoid being caught off-guard, and to be ready with a counter-response for literally everything?

Yep it is crazy. It is a free hit for the defence to lock every crown witness in to a version under oath and to know exactly what they are up against. The defence do not have to present anything and have nothing to lose.

Very weird

 

[Run n Spread]

Yep it is crazy. It is a free hit for the defence to lock every crown witness in to a version under oath and to know exactly what they are up against. The defence do not have to present anything and have nothing to lose.

Very weird

She wanted the case heard locally and was prepared to sit and wait. But her reasoning was off.
All murder cases go before Supreme Court and jury selection is random. Impossible to get a local jury. A local magistrate was her option but committals are a rubber stamp anyway.
Unless she is confident and wants it done.
I guess she'd have a brief by now??? and some idea who'd say what.
Will depend a lot on medical evidence and what the survivor says.
So if the crown proves yep it was mushrooms from autopsy and what the guy says who ate what how do you than prove where the mushrooms were sourced and she acted with malicious aforethought.
Must be a diary something on the phone. What's been presented currently is as thin as a wafer .

 

[Lady O]

She wanted the case heard locally and was prepared to sit and wait. But her reasoning was off.
All murder cases go before Supreme Court and jury selection is random. Impossible to get a local jury. A local magistrate was her option but committals are a rubber stamp anyway.
Unless she is confident and wants it done.
I guess she'd have a brief by now??? and some idea who'd say what.
Will depend a lot on medical evidence and what the survivor says.
So if the crown proves yep it was mushrooms from autopsy and what the guy says who ate what how do you than prove where the mushrooms were sourced and she acted with malicious aforethought.
Must be a diary something on the phone. What's been presented currently is as thin as a wafer .

The electronics sniffing dogs found some hidden ipad(s), phone(s) sim card(s), etc, so there may be some evidence on those.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

JULY 29 Erin's lunch
NOV 2 the house was searched.
Does anyone know when police regarded her as a person of interest in the deaths?

 

[Ninety Nine]

JULY 29 Erin's lunch
NOV 2 the house was searched.
Does anyone know when police regarded her as a person of interest in the deaths?

"A paramedic who tended to one of the dying victims was so concerned by their final conversation that they passed details on to detectives."

"As her guests fell critically ill, Ms Patterson said she was contacted by the Department of Health and asked what might have caused the violent reaction to the meal.

"Police said their symptoms were consistent with those caused by death cap mushrooms"

"She now claims she was at the hospital with her children “discussing the food hydrator” when her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, asked: “Is that what you used to poison them?” The food dehydrator was found at the local tip by detectives Friday 4th August.


All the above came to light before the first deaths on the Friday. All could have made her a person of interest.

 

[Run n Spread]

"A paramedic who tended to one of the dying victims was so concerned by their final conversation that they passed details on to detectives."

"As her guests fell critically ill, Ms Patterson said she was contacted by the Department of Health and asked what might have caused the violent reaction to the meal.

"Police said their symptoms were consistent with those caused by death cap mushrooms"

"She now claims she was at the hospital with her children “discussing the food hydrator” when her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, asked: “Is that what you used to poison them?” The food dehydrator was found at the local tip by detectives Friday 4th August.


All the above came to light before the first deaths on the Friday. All could have made her a person of interest.

Very Possible. She could have been speculating that was it clean? or did something go off in it as the cause of sickness? As her claim
The husband just coming in and throwing an accusation adds to naught
But if as you say he than said well I fell sick the same way last yeah the police buy it and that's your attempted murder charge .
Hope she panics that police are onto the pattern and she confesses.
Still got to be more. A half competent defence would punch bigger holes though it than the Grand Canyon

 

[Awakening]

I suppose she could argue that due to mental illness, distress from her marriage break up, that she only intended to make her guests ill, not to kill them.

That allegedly she’d successfully done so with her ex husband multiple times and he never died.

 

[Zidane98]

I suppose she could argue that due to mental illness, distress from her marriage break up, that she only intended to make her guests ill, not to kill them.

That allegedly she’d successfully done so with her ex husband multiple times and he never died.

Still manslaughter in that instance as her reckless actions caused death & serious bodily harm to another human being. Considering multiple counts and the pre meditation of the whole sordid affair if she got done for manslaughter I would expect a near maximum punishment.

 

[Ninety Nine]

From today's Directions hearing

".....dates were set for these pre-trial cross-examinations. starting on Wednesday, August 21, 2024 for eight days and continuing from Monday, October 7 for up to three weeks."

https://www.sgst.com.au/news/patterson-trial-may-still-be-held-in-the-latrobe-valley

 

[MrsBlueSky]

From today's Directions hearing

".....dates were set for these pre-trial cross-examinations. starting on Wednesday, August 21, 2024 for eight days and continuing from Monday, October 7 for up to three weeks."

https://www.sgst.com.au/news/patterson-trial-may-still-be-held-in-the-latrobe-valley

Today was a directions hearing and we could now have 4 weeks of pre-trial examinations before the trial begins that could take several months - I'm not saying she's guilty but lucky she's not doing the catering for everyone with her beef wellington while we wait for a verdict.

 

[BFew]

'Accused triple murderer Erin Patterson will face trial in regional Victoria early next year.'

Erin Patterson's murder trial over the lunch deaths of three people will be held in regional Victoria

Erin Patterson's lawyers have successfully argued for the accused murderer's Supreme Court trial next year not to take place in Melbourne, but in the Gippsland town of Morwell.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Run n Spread]

Seems weird. Juries are random. No guarantee she will get a local. When I did jury duty (didn't serve) there were people from regional Vic who came into the city.
And isn't she on remand in Melbourne?
Maybe the lawyer feels that jurors will rule out seek exemption wanting to drive to the la trobe Valley every day and the judge will grant exemptions based on vic gov is not stumping the cash to accommodate them for.months. So.more likely to get locals.
But wouldn't she better off in the city. I for example while i love the country outdoors getting away etc don't know the first ****ing thing about mushrooms so.could buy accident.
More likely to get the mushroom ignorant in a city/other town where they don't grow than home base. No one she knows will be allowed on. Seems strange.

 

[lizard man]

Has there been any update about evidence in this case? Any any rock solid evidence that she’s actually guilty?

 

[SJ]

Has there been any update about evidence in this case? Any any rock solid evidence that she’s actually guilty?

Don’t expect to read any reports before the trial.

 

[Zidane98]

Has there been any update about evidence in this case? Any any rock solid evidence that she’s actually guilty?

'There's obviously plenty of evidence she poisoned the victims.


It's a matter of determining whether that was done with the intent to kll or simply just to make them sick. This would be the difference between a manslaughter or murder conviction.

 

[Irma]

But wouldn't she better off in the city. I for example while i love the country outdoors getting away etc don't know the first ****ing thing about mushrooms so.could buy accident.
More likely to get the mushroom ignorant in a city/other town where they don't grow than home base. No one she knows will be allowed on. Seems strange.

Hypothetically, regardless of whether you’re a City or Country person though, if you’re sitting on the jury, would you still buy the idea of an accident if it were entered into evidence that she was an experienced forager who, it’s claimed, was ‘very good’ at it..? And also, not to forget that she initially claimed to have bought the mushrooms from Woolies, but also bought from an Asian grocer (the name of, or location of, she couldn’t recall)?

 

[Zidane98]

Hypothetically, regardless of whether you’re a City or Country person though, if you’re sitting on the jury, would you still buy the idea of an accident if it were entered into evidence that she was an experienced forager who, it’s claimed, was ‘very good’ at it..? And also, not to forget that she initially claimed to have bought the mushrooms from Woolies, but also bought from an Asian grocer (the name of, or location of, she couldn’t recall)?

The grocer stuff obviously isn't true otherwise there would have been a highly public recall right away.


For me the only question is whether she intended to just make everyone sick or whether she actually intended to cause death through her actions. There seems little dispute that the wellington pie was laced with toxic mushrooms.

 

[Run n Spread]

Hypothetically, regardless of whether you’re a City or Country person though, if you’re sitting on the jury, would you still buy the idea of an accident if it were entered into evidence that she was an experienced forager who, it’s claimed, was ‘very good’ at it..? And also, not to forget that she initially claimed to have bought the mushrooms from Woolies, but also bought from an Asian grocer (the name of, or location of, she couldn’t recall)?

Depends what's presented. What is an exert foragers? Someone who grows and picks out of a garden or goes and gets them in the wild? If b sure an accident could happen.
At this point I just don't buy murder?
WTF is the actual motive? Why knock the inlaws of your ex and brothers sisters for no reason? But than again why the lunch in the first place?
Given the 4 factors needed for murder (3 in this case as self defence is not related) I'd want to know exactly what caused their deaths who ate what on the day how the lunch was organised who suggested? Why? Who pulled out? Where did everyone agree to meet and why? Who bought what?
And hospital records. Who was sick when? Was EP seen by a doctor or admitted? When was the alarm first raised? Whole thing is as clear as mud to me. No way I'd convict on what's been reported/currently presented. Case appears weak as anything