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

[Zidane98]

I'd sal all of those who ate the beef wellington pie getting extremely sick and some dying is pretty strong evidence to start with.


Did Mrs Mushroom also eat the wellington pie prepared by herself? If she didn't that's another piece of evidence against her.


I think we can dismiss the dodgy mushrooms as being bought legitimately. The grocer would have been shut down, would have been all over media to throw out / destroy said mushrooms.

 

[Lady O]

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

Yes, for me it is unlikely she would have deliberately poisoned her in-laws. She had nothing to gain from it and was guaranteed to be blamed.

 

[Lady O]

I'd sal all of those who ate the beef wellington pie getting extremely sick and some dying is pretty strong evidence to start with.


Did Mrs Mushroom also eat the wellington pie prepared by herself? If she didn't that's another piece of evidence against her.


I think we can dismiss the dodgy mushrooms as being bought legitimately. The grocer would have been shut down, would have been all over media to throw out / destroy said mushrooms.

Just think, if she had eaten the beef wellington and died as well, it would have been put down to a terrible mistake. Who would have benefited? Follow the money!

 

[Pure_Ownage]

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)

There is a hospital at foster not far from the prom but it doesn't handle serious cases same with wonthaggi hospital (Leongatha has no ED). For a serious case you would be evacd to LRH in Traralgon or more likely monash/Alfred.

 

[Run n Spread]

Just think, if she had eaten the beef wellington and died as well, it would have been put down to a terrible mistake. Who would have benefited? Follow the money!

By this inassume you mean the husband?? Or someone else? How would they have done it thou? Access to the kitchen than leave? My understanding is he never went near there

 

[Lady O]

By this inassume you mean the husband?? Or someone else? How would they have done it thou? Access to the kitchen than leave? My understanding is he never went near there

I think they were dried mushrooms because of the dehydrator, so they could have been put there at any time.

 

[Kurve]

I think they were dried mushrooms because of the dehydrator, so they could have been put there at any time.

I've thought they may have been planted in there as well. If she's responsible, she MUST have known she was always going to get caught.

 

[Irma]

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

Yeah i’m not entirely buying murder either. My current take on things (and this has changed back and forth quite a bit ) is that she might be one of those bizarre people who gets a buzz out of seeing other people/family get sick, because that means she can swoop in and show her “worth” by taking care of them. Bit of a Munchaussen thing, which I’ve probs spelled wrong but I’m too sick/lazy to look it up. So I think she maybe didn’t intend to kill anyone either, she just wanted to show the family that they need her.

My money is still also very much on the mushrooms being in the gravy, not in the Beef Welly itself. It just makes much more sense based on what we’ve been told so far.

 

[Earls Smother]

I've thought they may have been planted in there as well. If she's responsible, she MUST have known she was always going to get caught.

If they were planted, why would she:

Dispose of the dehydrator at the tip
Conveniently not feed the pie to herself and kids
Make up a story about buying them at a supermarket and Asian grocer
Hide a laptop down the back of the couch which the dog detected. The police knew they were missing a laptop according to a very well known crime journo.

Said journo reckons it was very fortunate the bloke survived, because her one "excuse" could have been that each person brought a course with them.

 

[Lady O]

If they were planted, why would she:

Dispose of the dehydrator at the tip
Conveniently not feed the pie to herself and kids
Make up a story about buying them at a supermarket and Asian grocer
Hide a laptop down the back of the couch which the dog detected. The police knew they were missing a laptop according to a very well known crime journo.

Said journo reckons it was very fortunate the bloke survived, because her one "excuse" could have been that each person brought a course with them.

I think it was her ex husband that told her to get rid of the dehydrator.

Maybe she was the main target.

The person would have known the kids didn't eat mushrooms.

She may not know where the mushrooms came from.
Was the laptop "hidden" down the back of the couch, or did a laptop slip down the back of the couch of it's own accord? What incriminating evidence was there on the laptop? What other electronic devices did they find and what evidence was on those?

 

[Earls Smother]

I think it was her ex husband that told her to get rid of the dehydrator.

I thought when he heard she had disposed of it, he said "is that what you used to kill them?"

Maybe she was the main target.

Based on what? Everything she did post the dinner would indicate otherwise.

The person would have known the kids didn't eat mushrooms.

Feasibly, but would a kid know if they were fed beef with a gravy that contained slivers? If it was anyone but her, the kids may have been at risk of eating some.

She may not know where the mushrooms came from.
Was the laptop "hidden" down the back of the couch, or did a laptop slip down the back of the couch of it's own accord? What incriminating evidence was there on the laptop? What other electronic devices did they find and what evidence was on those?

We are all guessing here, but I know what my guess would be. The police felt they were missing a laptop or other electronic device. Given they arrested and charged her, I'm tipping any evidence found on the device/s the dog found was not favourable to her.

 

[Kurve]

If they were planted, why would she:

Dispose of the dehydrator at the tip
Conveniently not feed the pie to herself and kids
Make up a story about buying them at a supermarket and Asian grocer
Hide a laptop down the back of the couch which the dog detected. The police knew they were missing a laptop according to a very well known crime journo.

Said journo reckons it was very fortunate the bloke survived, because her one "excuse" could have been that each person brought a course with them.

Oh I agree, it looks bad for her. Very, very bad.

Her defence is going to be interesting.

 

[Lady O]

I thought when he heard she had disposed of it, he said "is that what you used to kill them?"

Based on what? Everything she did post the dinner would indicate otherwise.

Feasibly, but would a kid know if they were fed beef with a gravy that contained slivers? If it was anyone but her, the kids may have been at risk of eating some.

We are all guessing here, but I know what my guess would be. The police felt they were missing a laptop or other electronic device. Given they arrested and charged her, I'm tipping any evidence found on the device/s the dog found was not favourable to her.

Yes we are all guessing, however it just feels like gaslighting to me.

 

[Zidane98]

Was the type of mushroom consumed able to be identified forensically?

Obviously not from a supermarket.

 

[ms finch]

Oh I agree, it looks bad for her. Very, very bad.

Her defence is going to be interesting.

I think they are just going to go with the prosecution not being able to make their burden, on the basis of the difficulty of proving intent.

I think the prosecution is taking a huge gamble with murder. It's arguable that even if she knew there were risks with mushrooms from prior situations with her husband, and even that may be a stretch, that doesn't satisfy intent or recklessness here. I think manslaughter might have been better here.

This ties in with why I think they waived the committal. This case is mostly forensic and data based. There is not much to be gained from cross examining the experts who put this together because it will come down to the veracity of the actual evidence, all of which the prosecution has to disclose anyway. Such a cross examination was also not going to prevent this from going to trial. The only person who would really be examined in any way is the ex-husband, and he is not necessarily even going to have been called, let alone be useful for the defence to assess beyond what they already can.

I'm fascinated to learn what the prosecution has that they think they can prove murder.

 

[Awakening]

I think they are just going to go with the prosecution not being able to make their burden, on the basis of the difficulty of proving intent.

I think the prosecution is taking a huge gamble with murder. It's arguable that even if she knew there were risks with mushrooms from prior situations with her husband, and even that may be a stretch, that doesn't satisfy intent or recklessness here. I think manslaughter might have been better here.

This ties in with why I think they waived the committal. This case is mostly forensic and data based. There is not much to be gained from cross examining the experts who put this together because it will come down to the veracity of the actual evidence, all of which the prosecution has to disclose anyway. Such a cross examination was also not going to prevent this from going to trial. The only person who would really be examined in any way is the ex-husband, and he is not necessarily even going to have been called, let alone be useful for the defence to assess beyond what they already can.

I'm fascinated to learn what the prosecution has that they think they can prove murder.

Unless she’s been one of those stupid crims that Google “how to kill my in-laws with mushrooms” “how many mushrooms do I need to make sure someone dies” That sort of thing.

 

[ms finch]

Unless she’s been one of those stupid crims that Google “how to kill my in-laws with mushrooms” “how many mushrooms do I need to make sure someone dies” That sort of thing.

I have trouble figuring out whether she is totally innocent, incredibly cunning, or a breathtakingly stupid criminal. She's a real mystery.

I've been told since I was knee high to a grasshopper that you don't eat wild mushrooms, because of the risks. Which puts her in the stupid category to me right from the outset, whether or not she committed any crime. But then, going down the rabbit hole that is this case I discover that in fact there are entire mushroom foraging communities, and people do it all the time and seem to know what they're doing. Not to mention that we've discovered enormous therapeutic benefits of mushrooms as well. If she did intend to kill them, then she nearly got away with the perfect crime, although you'd also have to say that, again if she did intend it, attempting to kill her ex husband on multiple occasions was probably not a very clever move in terms of concealing her motives. So was she just a complete imbecile who repeatedly cooked dodgy mushrooms, or was she exceptionally strategic in her attempts to poison them, or was she a total dumb dumb and it will become incredibly obvious she was trying to kill them?

I was on Reddit the other day, in a totally unrelated type of sub, and there was a guy posting about his attempts to get a particular book removed from Amazon. This book, it turns out, is an obviously AI generated mushroom foraging manual that is totally inaccurate. Him following its guides resulted in his family getting very sick. The Reddit thread had taken off and it turns out that fake AI generated mushroom foraging texts are a thing, and the mushroom foraging community is very troubled by it and is campaigning to have greater checks on their publication by sites like Amazon.

It occurred to me that this type of thing is a legitimate explanation for Erin Patterson. If she was a forager and was reliant on a dodgy text, that could be why this happened so many times.

 

[Lady O]

I have trouble figuring out whether she is totally innocent, incredibly cunning, or a breathtakingly stupid criminal. She's a real mystery.

I've been told since I was knee high to a grasshopper that you don't eat wild mushrooms, because of the risks. Which puts her in the stupid category to me right from the outset, whether or not she committed any crime. But then, going down the rabbit hole that is this case I discover that in fact there are entire mushroom foraging communities, and people do it all the time and seem to know what they're doing. Not to mention that we've discovered enormous therapeutic benefits of mushrooms as well. If she did intend to kill them, then she nearly got away with the perfect crime, although you'd also have to say that, again if she did intend it, attempting to kill her ex husband on multiple occasions was probably not a very clever move in terms of concealing her motives. So was she just a complete imbecile who repeatedly cooked dodgy mushrooms, or was she exceptionally strategic in her attempts to poison them, or was she a total dumb dumb and it will become incredibly obvious she was trying to kill them?

I was on Reddit the other day, in a totally unrelated type of sub, and there was a guy posting about his attempts to get a particular book removed from Amazon. This book, it turns out, is an obviously AI generated mushroom foraging manual that is totally inaccurate. Him following its guides resulted in his family getting very sick. The Reddit thread had taken off and it turns out that fake AI generated mushroom foraging texts are a thing, and the mushroom foraging community is very troubled by it and is campaigning to have greater checks on their publication by sites like Amazon.

It occurred to me that this type of thing is a legitimate explanation for Erin Patterson. If she was a forager and was reliant on a dodgy text, that could be why this happened so many times.

We often collected mushrooms after a good fall of rain when I was a kid. We only even picked the white on top, pink underneath ones. Never had any issue with them. I think it's when people go for the fancy ones that they get into trouble.

 

[CD Xbow]

I have trouble figuring out whether she is totally innocent, incredibly cunning, or a breathtakingly stupid criminal. She's a real mystery.

I've been told since I was knee high to a grasshopper that you don't eat wild mushrooms, because of the risks. Which puts her in the stupid category to me right from the outset, whether or not she committed any crime. But then, going down the rabbit hole that is this case I discover that in fact there are entire mushroom foraging communities, and people do it all the time and seem to know what they're doing. Not to mention that we've discovered enormous therapeutic benefits of mushrooms as well. If she did intend to kill them, then she nearly got away with the perfect crime, although you'd also have to say that, again if she did intend it, attempting to kill her ex husband on multiple occasions was probably not a very clever move in terms of concealing her motives. So was she just a complete imbecile who repeatedly cooked dodgy mushrooms, or was she exceptionally strategic in her attempts to poison them, or was she a total dumb dumb and it will become incredibly obvious she was trying to kill them?

I was on Reddit the other day, in a totally unrelated type of sub, and there was a guy posting about his attempts to get a particular book removed from Amazon. This book, it turns out, is an obviously AI generated mushroom foraging manual that is totally inaccurate. Him following its guides resulted in his family getting very sick. The Reddit thread had taken off and it turns out that fake AI generated mushroom foraging texts are a thing, and the mushroom foraging community is very troubled by it and is campaigning to have greater checks on their publication by sites like Amazon.

It occurred to me that this type of thing is a legitimate explanation for Erin Patterson. If she was a forager and was reliant on a dodgy text, that could be why this happened so many times.

Is the book still on Amazon?

 

[ms finch]

Is the book still on Amazon?

No, apparently that particular book finally got taken down. He had some other questions about whether he could report this as a crime and pursue anyone for compensation, and what should be done about other books that were iterations of the same thing.

I am happy to post the Reddit thread for people to look at, but I was not sure if links to Reddit threads were allowed here?