Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Aussie and NZ Mumsnetters

Welcome to Aussie & NZ Mumsnetters - discuss all aspects of parenting life in Australia and New Zealand, including relocating, schools and local areas.

The mushroom poisoning in Vic.... I am gripped - Part 2

1000 replies

ImustLearn2Cook · 20/08/2023 00:38

Hi everyone, Aussie Mumsnetter here. As some have requested a new thread be started by an Aussie I decided to do it.

I am still gripped by this case and like many, I am awaiting updates of new information.

Will a matching donor for a liver for Ian be found soon? I hope he makes a full recovery.

Will he be able to shed new light on the lunch they all shared?

And of course is she guilty of deliberately poisoning them or was it an innocent mistake?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
57
Cosywintertime · 04/11/2023 06:05

She may have been smart at some things, but possibly arrogant or emotionally driven. As when you look at this cold, if she’s guilty of what she’s charged with, she was never going to get away with it. 3 people dying at the same lunch, with one more seriously ill, but she’s not impacted? It’s always going to arouse suspicion. And the drivel she came out with in her statements to the press? That wasn’t smart. No wonder her lawyers took exception. Most of us saw it immediately on those public statements.

shes not some genius, the colleague is deluded. A genius would have never taken the action she allegedlydid, nor would they have made public statements like she did. Let’s face it, if you’re going to kill, there are smarter ways to do it.

if she’s guilty , then like many cold blooded mass murderers, we will really never understand her psychology, or even what went on at home, with those kids drawing predictive gravestones for their granny on the wall.

i wont deride air traffic controllers, you need a good level of intelligence for the role. But like many roles, you dont need to be an actual genius. And saying “you alright you baffoon” as someone tripped on your headset cable, shows someone totally lacking in empathy, social skills, and emotional intelligence.

if someone tripped on my cable, I’d immediately turn round and say oh shit you ok, like most of us would. Not attack. So the colleague proclaiming her a genius simply as she passed her training and ran equipment on her own, is really saying more about themselves. They think someone needs to be a genius to do that. They don’t.

velvetandsatin · 04/11/2023 06:12

Yes, there's a tremendous arrogance shown in what has gone down, imagining for starters she won't be suspected and won't be caught. And a total lack of empathy for the hideous suffering she was about to cause. It is unimaginable to imagine her sitting across the table from these poor people as they ate her poisoned meals, knowing (as anyone of remote intelligence, who had some level of foraging experience would) the unstoppable and awful death that was awaiting them. Her acting was terrible, her story shifted and was easily picked apart.

hollyblueivy · 04/11/2023 08:10

What's the motive here?

Choux · 04/11/2023 09:02

hollyblueivy · 04/11/2023 08:10

What's the motive here?

From what we have read she amassed some wealth through working, inheritance, property. On divorce that would need to be split with her husband. She reportedly wanted to reconcile with him - either for love, money, the sake of the kids or for societal reasons (not wanting to be a divorcee / have a failed marriage).

Husband did not want to reconcile so she tried to kill him instead. His family did not support them getting back together so she killed / attempted to kill all of them too.

The exact reasons why we don't know yet.

JFT · 04/11/2023 11:27

LovelaceBiggWither · 04/11/2023 02:37

Is Websleuths closed down? EB was a large Australian forum that suddenly closed a couple of years ago, Essential Baby.

WebSleuths is alive and kicking.

Newtonianmechanics · 04/11/2023 12:50

I find it strange, but I guess different communities are different, that she invited her in laws and their mates over to discuss financial business and negotiations.
Inlaws as a mediator maybe but friends too.

If I was getting divorced no way would my exes friends be coming over to negotiate let alone their mates. Think I would stick to true meditatiors.

JFT · 04/11/2023 13:02

Newtonianmechanics · 04/11/2023 12:50

I find it strange, but I guess different communities are different, that she invited her in laws and their mates over to discuss financial business and negotiations.
Inlaws as a mediator maybe but friends too.

If I was getting divorced no way would my exes friends be coming over to negotiate let alone their mates. Think I would stick to true meditatiors.

I suspect that therein lies the crux of the issue.

Did she invite them over? Or did they pin her down to a date and say hey this issue needs resolution, enough time has gone by, we're calling at your house on 'x date', lets have a thorough discussion (ie an intervention of sorts) and effectively come mob handed. Five against one. Unfair fight.

Of course legal mediators would be the right way forward but I suspect she was refusing to go down that avenue as if she's guilty, I think she did this because she was angry / frantic that her ex-husband would be entitled to a huge chunk of her inherited wealth / property upon divorce.

If she'd have gone down the correct legal route, she'd have lost a massive percentage of her wealth / property (depending on divorce laws and division of wealth in Australia). Plus it costs a lot of money.

Some people say he wanted a divorce but she didn't but regardless they weren't together and she obviously wasn't fond of him. So maybe she was stringing him along over time refusing to sign paperwork for a legal separation. Maybe the day came where the in-laws and the husband said OK right lets sit down and thrash this out once and for all.

Newtonianmechanics · 04/11/2023 13:08

'Some people say he wanted a divorce but she didn't but regardless they weren't together and she obviously wasn't fond of him. So maybe she was stringing him along over time refusing to sign'
'paperwork for a legal separation. Maybe the day came where the in-laws and the husband said OK right lets sit down and thrash this out once and for all.'

Interesting thoughts, maybe this was the case but then I wouldn't even expect a glass of water or a coffee let alone an elaborate meal. But again maybe she was known for being a good cook.

velvetandsatin · 04/11/2023 13:22

Newtonianmechanics · 04/11/2023 12:50

I find it strange, but I guess different communities are different, that she invited her in laws and their mates over to discuss financial business and negotiations.
Inlaws as a mediator maybe but friends too.

If I was getting divorced no way would my exes friends be coming over to negotiate let alone their mates. Think I would stick to true meditatiors.

It was her mother- and father-in-law, and her mother-in-law's sister and husband - who was a pastor, and was seen as someone who could mediate. As there have been conflicting stories about what was being mediated - one report was she wanted to get back with Simon, another says the opposite, and either way it may have involved discussions around custody of the children, etc - we may have to wait until the trial to get any idea of the purpose of the lunch, that Simon was supposed to attend, or who convened the lunch. It has also been reported that the attendees were concerned about her mental state.

TerrorAustralis · 05/11/2023 01:16

The motive is the weird thing. None of the speculated reasons really make sense. Even if she did want to get rid of her ex-husband to avoid splitting her assets with him, there was no reason to kill the in-laws.

To the person asking about split of assets in Australian family law, given that she was a SAHM, the split would have gone in her favour. But depending on the rest of the asset pool, she might have had to give him some of her inheritance. I think the DM are over-egging it slightly, referring to her as an independently wealthy heiress. But they never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Dustyblue · 05/11/2023 01:50

One thing I'm still not grasping is why, if her Ex-husband Simon knew of her poisony tendencies (and it'd seem he absolutely did) why he didn't discourage his parents and Aunt/Uncle from turning up for lunch?

Did he think she was only after him, and couldn't imagine she'd pull a stunt like this?

So curious about the previous attempts on his life. What a piece of work she must be.

velvetandsatin · 05/11/2023 06:35

I think there is a big difference between having an uneasy feeling you could tell yourself was just paranoia and then, when your relatives are killed by a meal at her house, looking back at your own experiences with a different lens.

Hindsight is a cold clear light. Nobody in his position would ever have imagined she'd go on to poison his parents and aunt and uncle - it's so crazy and vicious.

KatherineJaneway · 05/11/2023 07:00

Who knows what goes on in the mind of a killer.

AutumnCrow · 05/11/2023 09:29

I feel that the strange thing she said (and the way she phrased it) after the poisonings is significant in some way:

"I really want to repeat that I had absolutely no reason to hurt these people whom I loved."

She’s saying a lot there, while thinking she’s denying having a motive.

Choux · 05/11/2023 09:56

AutumnCrow · 05/11/2023 09:29

I feel that the strange thing she said (and the way she phrased it) after the poisonings is significant in some way:

"I really want to repeat that I had absolutely no reason to hurt these people whom I loved."

She’s saying a lot there, while thinking she’s denying having a motive.

She didn't have a reason to kill them. It was her ex husband she was desperate to kill.

Having tried three times (according to the police charges) and failed she decided to go bigger and better. Kill the ex and to help make it look like an oh so tragic mistake kill all his relatives too. It helps it look accidental as she had no motive to kill them but it gets the job done on the ex.

Psychopath / unhinged etc. The relatives were meant to be just collateral damage. But the ex pulled out and she had to serve the beef to the others. I imagine she was furious during lunch when the one she most wanted to be eating the poison wasn't there.

GonnaGetGoingReturns · 05/11/2023 10:01

alwaysonadiet1 · 03/11/2023 13:50

Most of the death cap poisoning incidents are in Asian people as the mushrooms resemble a type commonly used in Asian cuisine. Straw caps I think. She probably knew this.

Ah that makes sense

OhBeAFineGuyKissMe · 05/11/2023 10:08

Maybe she thought it would be less suspicious if everyone at the meal was ill and a few died. So she real target would be hidden and it could be passed off as a massive, heartbreaking tragedy. She claimed she was ill as well (has it been confirmed?). So the other deaths were just collateral damage!!!

Her kids not eating it is easily explained - lots of kids eat simpler meals, beef wellington with a strong mushroom pate would be too much for many. So they just ate some thing else entirely.

velvetandsatin · 05/11/2023 10:41

Maybe she thought it would be less suspicious if everyone at the meal was ill and a few died. So she real target would be hidden and it could be passed off as a massive, heartbreaking tragedy.

That's a good point. But when the main target pulled out of the lunch, she had the opportunity to "burn" the beef wellington and serve a salad without poison. The way she went ahead and killed them anyway is just incomprehensible to me.

Mamette · 05/11/2023 10:53

Maybe she wanted to get rid of anyone who would suspect her of murdering her husband or be able to put two and two together.

Wrenjeni · 05/11/2023 10:56

Choux · 05/11/2023 09:56

She didn't have a reason to kill them. It was her ex husband she was desperate to kill.

Having tried three times (according to the police charges) and failed she decided to go bigger and better. Kill the ex and to help make it look like an oh so tragic mistake kill all his relatives too. It helps it look accidental as she had no motive to kill them but it gets the job done on the ex.

Psychopath / unhinged etc. The relatives were meant to be just collateral damage. But the ex pulled out and she had to serve the beef to the others. I imagine she was furious during lunch when the one she most wanted to be eating the poison wasn't there.

But why on earth wouldn’t she, upon realising her ex wasn’t going to attend, not ‘accidentally’ burn the lunch rather than poison people she didn’t want to?
Maybe she’d made him up a doggy bag for them to take back to him?!

Wrenjeni · 05/11/2023 10:57

Sorry-cross posted with @velvetandsatin

velvetandsatin · 05/11/2023 11:09

Wrenjeni · 05/11/2023 10:57

Sorry-cross posted with @velvetandsatin

We are psychic!

Newtonianmechanics · 05/11/2023 12:44

It is very bizarre ( well obviously the whole case is). She didn't get the alleged chance to kill her husband but would kill others anyway.

Surely this doesn't solve her inheritance problem.

Sagealicious · 05/11/2023 13:03

Newtonianmechanics · 05/11/2023 12:44

It is very bizarre ( well obviously the whole case is). She didn't get the alleged chance to kill her husband but would kill others anyway.

Surely this doesn't solve her inheritance problem.

What inheritance problem? She had inherited a considerable amount from her mum's will. Enough that she was able to buy several properties.

Choux · 05/11/2023 13:13

Maybe the ex said he was running late to buy time as he didn't want to go and then the Wellington was already out of the oven resting when he said he wasn't coming. So everyone knew it was unburnt.

If the ex was a genius, hated his family and knew Erin was trying to kill him it's a clever way to make someone commit murder and save you having to do it yourself. I don't think that's what did happen but it's a good plot for a book.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.