The mushroom poisoning in Vic...... we are gripped!.....Part 3

[Dustyblue]

New thread! Cheers @echt for noticing!

And yet your only contribution is to tell someone they are over-invested. So...

Thanks @Dustyblue

’Dr Webster, who gave evidence during the nine-week trial…..: "I explained that death cap mushroom poisoning was suspected and [asked] where'd you get the mushrooms," he said on Tuesday. According to him, she replied with a single word: "Woolworths."’

I want to say thanks, to everyone who has contributed to these threads since the beginning!

Also, I should apologise for accidently splitting the threads. I wanted to do a genuine poll but should have realised I'd split the threads into 2... oopps!

It's a shame in a sense that we all live in different parts of Australia and indeed, different parts of the UK!

Imagine if we could all get together for dinner one night! We could all bring a 'mushroom' related meal or cocktail & thrash it all out face to face. 😂

This bit struck me most-

"Erin sat in a chair and I don't even remember her looking in the direction of Ian and Heather Wilkinson … they weren't barriered, there were opened curtains on the cubicle," he said.

He said she lacked "any sort of expected normal human emotional response" to being in that situation.

"When people come through the doors that I led Erin through, they usually make a beeline for their [loved one]. They go straight to that bed and they embrace the loved one," he said.

"They usually cry or shake or respond in an emotive way and then they spin around and they try to find a nurse or a doctor to come over and explain what's going on to their loved one."

Dr Webster only met her briefly but still got the shudders.

That is chilling.

A meeting would be excellent. On my dog walks I've noticed that fungus growth has been poor in the very dry Melbourne autumn and winter, only just now perking up. Got to say every time I notice it, I think of Erin Patterson.

An exceptionally beautiful fungus on a pine tree. Enjoy.

That is an excellent bit of fungus!

I walk around my local area in Sth Gippy daily and yes- it's been too dry this year. Haven't seen anywhere near as many varieties.

There are some that are so obviously dodgy that you wouldn't touch them, let alone pick/eat them. But those Death Caps do look quite innocent.

What would be on the menu?
If it's beef wellington, I hate mushrooms so can I please have a mushroom free one 😂

I made BW once but don't think I'll ever make it again!

Poor Nagi, aka RecipeTin Eats for being dragged into this.

RecipeTin Eats cook upset her beef wellington recipe ‘entangled’ in Erin Patterson murder case | Food | The Guardian

What is wrong with you?

I don’t believe it. It’s been a lot of free publicity for the book.

I found this unprofessional and undignified from a Doctor. He must like the attention.

I tend to agree. He now owns a practise in Leongatha

Dr Christopher Webster - Doctor - Leongatha Healthcare - Book Online with HotDoc

Edited to say- I have read that Dr Webster has purchased this, and as such owns the general practise, but I could be wrong and I wish him and his legal advisers no ill will.

Nagi doesn't need publicity like this and it could be argued she doesn't need publicity at all.

"The Mushroom Tapes' a conversation between Helen Garner, Chloe Hooper and Sarah Krasnostein is being published November 25 2025. Excellent team of authors.

She’s already the best-selling cookbook author in Australia. We all have her books, so she doesn’t need the publicity.

And it’s certainly not a case of ‘any publicity is good publicity’. Half the country will never eat beef Wellington ever again, even Nagi’s recipe!

@TerrorAustralis Agreed. Nagi has nothing to do with this, other than she will have been contacted by so-called journalists with nothing better to do.

I live in Gippsland and we have a serious lack of doctors, even for simple things like repeat scripts.

Would I do a telehealth appointment with Dr Webster if it meant I could get mine & my child's prescriptions done? Yes, I would.

I'm not loving his response here, to say the least, but one must be pragmatic.

I must confess this bit in the trial did make me laugh - when they were discussing Dr Webster strongly advising her to bring her kids in:

Erin told the jury she wasn't reluctant, rather overwhelmed by the doctor who she believed was "yelling" at her. "I've since learnt this was his inside voice," she added.

I agree! Calling someone a bitch really unprofessional.

However on the Mail podcast he does come actually a lot better. It is astonishing his court testimony vs his what actually happened. The amount of evidence that is inadmissible is shocking, so much for thw whole truth and nothing but. He witnessed Erin not care that her in laws were behind a curtain. Was as though she didn't care.
U always wondered why she never went to see them.
He also said that he wouldn't have let her leave and would have kept her under mental heath act.

The rules of evidence are there to prevent miscarriages of justice. There are very specific and important reasons why evidence may be excluded. The circumstances of why particular evidence was excluded we will never know because it was argued privately before the judge by the lawyers. Just because you personally don't know the reason doesn't mean it's a bad one.

In this case, things were excluded that make her seem more guilty. If admitted by the judge, the defence may have used them as a basis for an appeal. EP was found guilty in their absence, making the conviction more sound and an appeal less likely to be successful. Surprised you don't see this as a good thing.

so much for thw whole truth and nothing but

Come on @Blueyshift that's a line from a Tom.Cruise movie not a rule of evidence 😂

Not acting "as expected" and seeming cold following tragic events is exactly got Lindy Chamberlain locked up for decades. Which is pretty much exactly why the judiciary are extremely careful about evidence of this type.

But it is fact she didn't speak to them in A and E. I didn't know it was a line from Tom C but it does fit. He didn't notice her go check on them. That is a fact.
It is crazy how much is inadmissible.

Sorry, I don't really understand your post, as that's pretty much exactly what I was saying. Maybe I just didn't explain myself very clearly.

Just because you personally don't know the reason doesn't mean it's a bad one.

I said it seemed "weird" to me that the CCTV evidence of the tip run was inadmissible "but there obviously must be a reason". To elaborate - it seems surprising to me, but that's because I'm a layperson who has pretty much no knowledge of the legal technicalities around criminal trials. I was absolutely NOT saying it's a bad decision or that I know better than the very experienced lawyers or judge. If the evidence was ruled inadmissible, then there was a good reason. It's just something I found surprising and interesting.

In this case, things were excluded that make her seem more guilty. If admitted by the judge, the defence may have used them as a basis for an appeal. EP was found guilty in their absence, making the conviction more sound and an appeal less likely to be successful. Surprised you don't see this as a good thing.

Absolutely. That was my thought too and what I was trying to get across: "It feels like a good thing that so much important evidence got thrown out though, regarding a possible appeal. It shows what an excellent job her defence have done, so it sounds very unlikely she could argue ineffective assistance of counsel."

Or in other words - I believe she's guilty, so it's a good thing to me that a lot of evidence was ruled inadmissible and she still got found guilty. Because if her lawyers had done a sub-par job and allowed evidence to be heard that should have been inadmissible (like the tip run CCTV from after the meal) then she could use that as grounds for an appeal.

Sorry, I don't really understand your post, as that's pretty much exactly what I was saying. Maybe I just didn't explain myself very clearly.

Just because you personally don't know the reason doesn't mean it's a bad one.

I said it seemed "weird" to me that the CCTV evidence of the tip run was inadmissible "but there obviously must be a reason". To elaborate - it seems surprising to me, but that's because I'm a layperson who has pretty much no knowledge of the legal technicalities around criminal trials. I was absolutely NOT saying it's a bad decision or that I know better than the very experienced lawyers or judge. If the evidence was ruled inadmissible, then there was a good reason. It's just something I found surprising and interesting.

In this case, things were excluded that make her seem more guilty. If admitted by the judge, the defence may have used them as a basis for an appeal. EP was found guilty in their absence, making the conviction more sound and an appeal less likely to be successful. Surprised you don't see this as a good thing.

Absolutely. That was my thought too and what I was trying to get across: "It feels like a good thing that so much important evidence got thrown out though, regarding a possible appeal. It shows what an excellent job her defence have done, so it sounds very unlikely she could argue ineffective assistance of counsel."

Or in other words - I believe she's guilty, so it's a good thing to me that a lot of evidence was ruled inadmissible and she still got found guilty. Because if her lawyers had done a sub-par job and allowed evidence to be heard that should have been inadmissible (like the tip run CCTV from after the meal) then she could use that as grounds for an appeal.