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

[ImustLearn2Cook]

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?

@yazzibut the prosecution is still making its’ case so the most you can say is that their case as you understand it right now doesn’t make you think it’s proven beyond reasonable doubt that she deliberately murdered them.

All the evidence is circumstantial. As it is in most murder trials.

You agree that probably her husband was involved?

I assume the police would have investigated whether there was any involvement from her husband, or anyone else, or whether there was any evidence of abuse etc as motive. And in each case there was either no evidence, or nothing strong enough to bring to court.

Just as they haven't prosecuted for attempted murder, that doesn't mean they didn't investigate it.

For me there's doubt. She cooked the meal, and she lied. But is it possible that she realised she might have been responsible and panicked and lied? If I was on the jury I'd be looking for evidence that it was premeditated.

What I wonder...the evidence that shows she went to the area whether death cap mushrooms where reported....what did this discussion look like?
Was it solely about the DCMushrooms, or was it more of a 'there's some great foraging opportunities here, but beware of the DCMushrooms'? Did she look up how to identify DCMushrooms, and could the prosecution prove that was with intent to kill instead of intent to avoid them?

When did she dump the dehydrator? Was it immediately after the meal, or after it was discovered that it was poisoning? From memory it was after, but I'm not quite sure of the timeline on that. If it was premeditated and she'd picked and dried the mushrooms in advance, wouldn't she have got rid of the dehydrator then? Doing it after they're already sick seems like panic. Is that panic natural guilt, or guilt of a murderer?

She's guilty, of cooking the food and of lying about various things. But murder?

I could believe it was all a tragic accident, but the fake cancer diagnosis?? Why??

In a poisoning scenario though it all comes down to intent. Because people do make mistakes in foraging. So the mens rea is everything in this case in a way that it isn’t always.

I think the point made about actions after the event is interesting. Because if you had made a genuine mistake, lying about it after the event in a way that makes it more difficult to obtain help would surely also be very problematic. I’m not an expert on criminal law especially Australian criminal law but it would involve questions about how omissions vs acts are viewed. I suppose that’s another reason it will be important to understand at what point it was clear to her that they were ill, because from that point on arguably there was a failure to act, to explain the truth and provide info to permit medical professionals to assist. That failure would as pp says, in itself be reprehensible.

A misguided and pretty bad taste attempt to garner sympathy from his family, to triangulate them to obtain leverage against him? Again, it is implausible but we are talking about a triple murder charge here so one must be sure there is no room for reasonable doubt.

I suppose that’s another reason it will be important to understand at what point it was clear to her that they were ill, because from that point on arguably there was a failure to act, to explain the truth and provide info to permit medical professionals to assist.

It was pretty clear they were ill when all four went to hospital the morning after the lunch. Lunch was Saturday, and they were seriously ill in hospital by Sunday morning. EP was asked by Don and Gail's son Mathew on Monday morning where she got the mushrooms, and she lied and said from the supermarket and an asian grocery. She was then asked by multiple doctors and medical staff, and repeated variations of the same lie, hence delaying identification of the cause of the illness and treatment, and causing livers to fail in a horrible and painful way.

But she wanted, and expected, him to be there.

Unless she wanted the sympathy from him too for money/tax purposes. But if this is money motivated then that's motive enough for murder - she would have gained financially from their death as much as her husband would.

Those poor kids.

Was there some early speculation that they got ill from a different meal? Did they eat together somewhere else before or after the meal? Not suggesting the poisoning happened elsewhere, just that I thought I remember them thinking that originally?

If they were asking about the mushrooms in the hospital then I don't really see that it matters where they came from in terms of treatment? They must have already suspected DCMs to be asking that question?

How is it possible that they all got poisoned but she didn't? Or are the defence maintaining that she was also poisoned? How did she prepare them that made it possible for only one to not contain poison?

When does she testify? And why isn't it live streamed like America - I'd love to hear what she has to say for herself.

The only meal all the victims ate was the one provided by Erin Patterson.

Initially in the hospital they assumed it must be some sort of food poisoning cause by the meat.

After liver functions and other tests showed something else was happening, the thought of mushroom poisoning was raised, so it was important to know if the mushrooms had been foraged.

There are quite a few poisonous mushrooms. DCs are quite distinctive in appearance, and also the most poisonous of mushrooms, and it was not until a toxicologist raised the possibility of DC poisoning that they realised this was probably what they were dealing with - and that it was, frankly, impossible for the victims to have eaten DCs if the mushrooms were bought from shops. But also, if they had been somehow put into the supply, it was a major public health hazard.

How is it possible that they all got poisoned but she didn't? Or are the defence maintaining that she was also poisoned? How did she prepare them that made it possible for only one to not contain poison?

She made individual Beef Wellingtons, like little fancy pasties. The mushroom duxelle or paste that lines each BW was full of Death Caps, designed to kill them - not just make them sick. Her mushroom paste was obviously made separately. She put theirs on four grey plates, and hers on an orange one, to be sure she didn't eat the wrong one.

There really is no way she could have just lucked out from being "a bit poisoned".

I don't think she'll testify, but who knows.

She made individual Beef Wellingtons, like little fancy pasties. The mushroom duxelle or paste that lines each BW was full of Death Caps, designed to kill them - not just make them sick. Her mushroom paste was obviously made separately. She put theirs on four grey plates, and hers on an orange one, to be sure she didn't eat the wrong one.

There really is no way she could have just lucked out from being "a bit poisoned".

That was my point really. How could she/the defence explain it?

If she wasn't trying to deliberately poison them, how didn't her individual beef Wellington contain the same mushrooms?

How much is deadly? Could a trace of it be deadly?

When she fed the kids the meat, did they still suspect the meat was the issue, or did they know it was likely mushrooms by then?

As a mother of young children, if I had accidentally poisoned people and was panicking, there is no way that I would refuse to be admitted to hospital for thorough checks, and I’d be taking my DC straight in to be checked too if there was the slightest chance they’d had even a speck of death cap mushroom. When you have children, you want to be around for them for as long as possible, and you also don’t want to take chances with their health.

How she reacted comes across to me as her knowing that they weren’t at risk.

The meal was suspect when she fed them the meat the night after the poison lulnch. But she knew the meat was okay, as it was never a part of any BW. If it was, just 'scraping the mushrooms off' as she claimed she did, one of her dozens of lies, would not have made the meat safe as the toxins would have leaked out into the meat.

Also, I don't know how the defence could explain it. So far they have just tried to mess with the witness's statements - suggesting there were no grey plates, or quibbling over whether there was or wasn't a tray.

They should have just had pizza or lasagne. Sorry to sound flippant, but BW with foraged potentially poisoned mushrooms sounds like a bit of a faff for any cook/host.

All the excuses/theories/reasons/motives being put forward are quite frankly bizarre. I doubt there are many families who would ever contemplate killing their relatives via a poisoned lunch. Be easier to do it some other way if they wanted to. I am baffled by the thought of someone wanting to kill their relatives for any reason. I know it happens, but honestly - it is really odd no matter when and to whom it happens.

A touch of neurodiversity might be in the mix with Mrs Patterson. That's the feeling I get, but it is not something that leads to murder either, but maybe the thought processes for EP?

I honestly don’t see how there is any defence if the prosecution shows evidence that:
1 she knew from online forums where death caps were and went there.
2 she collected death caps and dried them leaving traces of death cap in the dehydrator.
3 Four people eating from grey plates became seriously sick / died from death cap poisoning. But she ate from an orange plate and did not die or get very sick.
4 Doctors say the tests EP allowed them to do on her showed no traces of death cap in her body. They also say she was reluctant to even get the kids tested.
5 When the cause of the poisoning was being investigated she didn’t immediately say ‘ I foraged the mushrooms’. Instead she lied they were from a store.
6 Panic is not a reason to lie to the police or omit facts. When the cause of the poisoning was identified as death caps she didn’t say ‘ I foraged the mushrooms’. Instead she lied they were from a store and dumped the dehydrator.

All of the above is evidence a crime has been committed. It’s too much of a coincidence / a tall tale for it to be anything else. The only possible defence she might have is to say she only wanted to make them a little ill but misjudged just how toxic they were and used too much. But I am pretty sure I read less than half a mushroom can kill so it’s playing with fire to use them to try to just make people ill.

But I am pretty sure I read less than half a mushroom can kill so it’s playing with fire to use them to try to just make people ill.

Exactly. They're not "Litte Bit Sick Caps", they're called Death Caps for a reason.

If she's saying that she did forage them, and it was an error and a tragic mistake, then 1 and 2 are to be expected.

1. Neurodiverse people often have a special plate (in my family anyhow!) and it is possible she only owned 4 matching the same which she gave to guests. It's suggestive but not surely beyond reasonable doubt.

1. I'm a doctor and listening to their evidence on the podcast /abc full text it seems they didn't test the patient's bloods specifically for death cap mushrooms but they tested for markers eg kidney liver electrolytes pH that could be affected. I would be interested if anyone heard anything different to this. So the blood tests are not conclusive that EP didn't have some amount of poison that she had recovered from.

Not letting her kids get looked at. Apparently EP didn't like hospitals so that could have contributed. The kids remained well and she knew they hadn't had the mushrooms bit. The kids did get looked at later.

5 and 6.Lying and panicking after the event is not good but again it's within the realms of what people do. Including innocent people. Imagine realising you'd killed 3 relatives you might be incredibly embarrassed and overtaken with guilt and hope that noone would find out.

I'm not saying I'm sure she's innocent. But I don't see how they can prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

As I said before the fact she pointed police to the leftovers in the bin is very suggestive that she's innocent of intending bad effects or of intentionally using death caps.

She obviously has a lot of issues whether or not she's innocent or guilty!

Or simply that one must keep an open mind?

Add the fact she said she had extreme diarrhoea but there was no clinical evidence from tests that supported this and she didn’t use the toilet in the time she was in hospital.

She went to the hospital the day after she had the diarrhoea symptoms so it's not surprising she didn't have them in hospital.

Her daughter age 9 reported her mum went to the toilet about ten times. Her son I don't know the full details whether he agrees with that, but she didn't need the loo on the return journey to his flying lesson 90km away (it got cancelled when they were nearly there) but when they got home he said she ran in from the car to get to the toilet.

she might have inhaled the mushrooms or got them on her fingers

No; as I said in that same post:
"I think there is a reasonable possibility at least of tragic/reckless accident."

That's the inverse of what I'm saying and amounts to the same thing- that the prosecution so far hasn't proven THIS 'case theory' beyond reasonable doubt, to my mind. Doubt continues to exist for me about the possibility of other scenarios.

The post from @Jellyjellyonaplate demonstrates why.

Criminal cases in Australia are not televised and no cameras are allowed in the courtroom. That's why the reporting includes cartoons of the accused in the courtroom not photos.