Mushroom killer arrested

No charges laid, so no crime yet.
I am not a great chef either.
 
I'm not sure about how reliable the NZ Herald Sun is, but it reports that ex-husband Simon Patterson claims to be suspicious of having previously been poisoned by his ex-wife.

"According to a source close to the family, ex-husband Simon allegedly claimed Erin tried to poison him last year.
A source close to Simon told the Herald Sun that he claimed Erin had tried to poison him through an “ingested toxin”.
The Herald Sun reported that the family friend said Simon felt “a bit off” and that his illnesses “often coincided when he spent time with her”.
Simon has refused to speak about the fatal lunch served up by his ex-wife in July, but last year revealed on social media that he had nearly died from a mysterious gut illness that left him in a coma."
 
The police have thrown in three earlier attempted murder charges. I believed at the onset that the biggest problem the police would have is sifting through the massive evidence against Patterson.

This will be a slam dunk.
 
Why wasn't she sick

How will the defense explain how she did not ingest the poison herself?
 
Chris_Halkides said:
How will the defense explain how she did not ingest the poison herself?
Click to expand...

From the linked Sun report:
"Erin Patterson claims she also fell ill on July 31 after consuming leftovers. The Age reported she was admitted to the hospital in Leongatha before an ambulance transferred her to a hospital in Melbourne.
Neither of Erin’s children became ill after the lunch. It is not known if they ate any of the beef wellington pie served to guests."

Although I have read in a separate article that she claimed to have let her children eat some of the leftovers after having scraped out mushrooms which they didn't want to eat.
 
verifiably ill?

"In the same statement she claimed she bought the mushrooms used in the meal from two separate stores.

When news of the investigation emerged in early August, Detective Inspector Dean Thomas with the Victoria Police homicide squad said Patterson was a suspect because she cooked the meal, and was the only adult at the lunch who didn’t fall ill." CNN
I have also read a report in which she claimed to have diarrhea.
 
lionking said:
I doubt it. Her lies to the police were ridiculous. I’m prepared to put money on there being no evidence of purchasing the dried mushrooms (the accused excuse for the poisoning. I also doubt she will be convincing under questioning in court.

An earlier thread which has gone through some of the issues.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=367603&highlight=Mushrooms
Click to expand...

Chris_Halkides said:
"In the same statement she claimed she bought the mushrooms used in the meal from two separate stores.

When news of the investigation emerged in early August, Detective Inspector Dean Thomas with the Victoria Police homicide squad said Patterson was a suspect because she cooked the meal, and was the only adult at the lunch who didn’t fall ill." CNN
I have also read a report in which she claimed to have diarrhea.
Click to expand...

Hmm.

Well I guess it is always going to look suspicious when the person who prepared the meal, does not actually eat the meal themselves, and everyone who does eat it gets ill and/or dies as a result.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Hmm.

Well I guess it is always going to look suspicious when the person who prepared the meal, does not actually eat the meal themselves, and everyone who does eat it gets ill and/or dies as a result.
Click to expand...

I wonder if any inheritance plot was behind this. While she is separated from her husband she is caring for his children. With her parents-in-law and ex-husband out of the way, maybe she thought she could get a decent payday.

Yes, not rational, and not normal likely to happen in the mind of a reasonably intelligent person. But Patterson seems to be neither rational nor intelligent.
 
smartcooky said:
Hmm.

Well I guess it is always going to look suspicious when the person who prepared the meal, does not actually eat the meal themselves, and everyone who does eat it gets ill and/or dies as a result.
Click to expand...

Pretending to be sick, turning up to hospital, and then found to be perfectly well isn't going to play well for her regarding premeditation.
 
lionking said:
I wonder if any inheritance plot was behind this. While she is separated from her husband she is caring for his children. With her parents-in-law and ex-husband out of the way, maybe she thought she could get a decent payday.

Yes, not rational, and not normal likely to happen in the mind of a reasonably intelligent person. But Patterson seems to be neither rational nor intelligent.
Click to expand...

This was my first thought too.

She may be currently in the in-laws' will, but like many in situations like that, interested in 'crystalising the profit' by getting them out of the way.

Watched a nasty break up recently, and the ex wife said: "My only regret is not waiting for his parents to die, so that I could get that too."

This impressed on me that individuals can have pretty extreme levels of desire for other peoples' money.

Not to mention the recent South Australian case where the parents were killed with insulin to speed up the inheritance process.

Nasty stuff.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
How will the defense explain how she did not ingest the poison herself?
Click to expand...

When you go to a friends place for a meal you should always insist that the host eat first. This will be evidence that the meal you are eating is not poisonous. This is a case where they failed to do this and paid the price.
 
irreconcilable differences?

At the Perez Hilton (yes, I know) website, it was stated, "But why invite her in-laws over in the first place? Why poison them? She reportedly asked to come over to win back her ex-husband Simon Patterson. Meanwhile, the family members accepted the invite since they wanted to hold an “intervention” for her and stop the former couple from reconciling!" I have now read two reports that she threw away a food dehydrator. How accurate Hilton's reporting is anyone's guess.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
At the Perez Hilton (yes, I know) website, it was stated, "But why invite her in-laws over in the first place? Why poison them? She reportedly asked to come over to win back her ex-husband Simon Patterson. Meanwhile, the family members accepted the invite since they wanted to hold an “intervention” for her and stop the former couple from reconciling!" I have now read two reports that she threw away a food dehydrator. How accurate Hilton's reporting is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...

The police have confirmed that she threw away the dehydrator. In fact she admitted it.
 
the drying process

I did a quick search. Drying poisonous mushrooms will not make them less toxic, but I found nothing to suggest that they would become more toxic, either. The mass of the poison is constant before versus after the drying process. She may well be guilty, but she also might not be the first innocent person to do something incriminating. The Larry Swearingen case in Texas, about which there is a short thread in this sub-forum, probably falls into that category.
EDT
Here is a link to a story from SkyNews on the case.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
I did a quick search. Drying poisonous mushrooms will not make them less toxic, but I found nothing to suggest that they would become more toxic, either. The mass of the poison is constant before versus after the drying process. She may well be guilty, but she also might not be the first innocent person to do something incriminating. The Larry Swearingen case in Texas, about which there is a short thread in this sub-forum, probably falls into that category.
EDT
Here is a link to a story from SkyNews on the case.
Click to expand...
The Larry Swearingen case was satisfactorily resolved by executing an innocent man. We can all move right along.
There are fascinating conundrums in the current case, around motive means and opportunity.
With the surprise absence of the husband, would she not delay the executions until they were all corralled. Did she immunize herself by low doses prior and so on.
 
Samson said:
The Larry Swearingen case was satisfactorily resolved by executing an innocent man. We can all move right along.
There are fascinating conundrums in the current case, around motive means and opportunity.
With the surprise absence of the husband, would she not delay the executions until they were all corralled. Did she immunize herself by low doses prior and so on.
Click to expand...


It's not a virus, it's a highly toxic poison. Planning to murder five people would make you a bit wacky in the first place. Logic is not her strong point.
 
a_unique_person said:
It's not a virus, it's a highly toxic poison. Planning to murder five people would make you a bit wacky in the first place. Logic is not her strong point.
Click to expand...
As Chris says, she may well be guilty.
If so it was a strategy for the perfect crime, certain to fail, and it did.
But imagine if she always foraged for the same mushrooms never connected the husband sickness, and kept on with the delicacy. She is obviously a serial killer, but...
 
Chris_Halkides said:
I did a quick search. Drying poisonous mushrooms will not make them less toxic, but I found nothing to suggest that they would become more toxic, either. The mass of the poison is constant before versus after the drying process. She may well be guilty, but she also might not be the first innocent person to do something incriminating. The Larry Swearingen case in Texas, about which there is a short thread in this sub-forum, probably falls into that category.
EDT
Here is a link to a story from SkyNews on the case.
Click to expand...
However the ratio of toxin to mass would increase.
 
knowledge and opportunity

varwoche said:
However the ratio of toxin to mass would increase.
Click to expand...
Here is my thought experiment: Dry one toxic mushroom and do not dry another identical one. If one consumes the first or the second, the mass of toxin consumed is the same in either situation. Another issue is how much toxin leeches from the mushroom into the rest of the dish. The drying process might conceivably change the percentage that leaves the mushroom and enters the sauce. I was not able to find any information relating to this question.

I lean slightly toward her being guilty, although I am far from certain. For example, a neighbor saying that she used to forage (and saying so after the fact of the crime) is not strong evidence that she had enough knowledge and opportunity to find poisonous mushrooms. Have poisonous mushrooms been found in that area? I do not recall seeing this question addressed.
EDT
WebMD: "Death cap mushrooms are poisonous regardless of how they’re prepared. The amatoxins in death caps are very stable and are not affected by heat or acids. Cooking, drying, or freezing these mushrooms has no effect on how poisonous they are."
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Here is my thought experiment: Dry one toxic mushroom and do not dry another identical one. If one consumes the first or the second, the mass of toxin consumed is the same in either situation. Another issue is how much toxin leeches from the mushroom into the rest of the dish. The drying process might conceivably change the percentage that leaves the mushroom and enters the sauce. I was not able to find any information relating to this question.

I lean slightly toward her being guilty, although I am far from certain. For example, a neighbor saying that she used to forage (and saying so after the fact of the crime) is not strong evidence that she had enough knowledge and opportunity to find poisonous mushrooms. Have poisonous mushrooms been found in that area? I do not recall seeing this question addressed.
EDT
WebMD: "Death cap mushrooms are poisonous regardless of how they’re prepared. The amatoxins in death caps are very stable and are not affected by heat or acids. Cooking, drying, or freezing these mushrooms has no effect on how poisonous they are."
Click to expand...
I get it. But less total mass makes it easier to eat more of them.
 
Samson said:
As Chris says, she may well be guilty.
If so it was a strategy for the perfect crime, certain to fail, and it did.
But imagine if she always foraged for the same mushrooms never connected the husband sickness, and kept on with the delicacy. She is obviously a serial killer, but...
Click to expand...

No buts about it. She is an idiot who took some time to perfect her craft (did you miss the attempted murder charges?). Her attempts to explain the "accident" were laughable. Neither she nor her children got sick. She incriminated herself with the easily disproved story of getting dry mushrooms in a specific suburb far away.

And why the dehydrator and its disposal? I have never seen that used in any Beef Wellington recipe I've seen.

Finally, Victoria Police, while far from perfect, is nevertheless extremely careful in charging people with murder. There will be a committal hearing first, where I suspect her defence will use all the paltry evidence they have. Then trial by jury, guilty and life imprisonment.
 
He defence may be weak, but can the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt her guilt? A good jury would want to hear one person say they have first-hand evidence of her guilt. I cannot see that witness coming forward. The evidence is all circumstantial.
 
rjh01 said:
He defence may be weak, but can the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt her guilt? A good jury would want to hear one person say they have first-hand evidence of her guilt. I cannot see that witness coming forward. The evidence is all circumstantial.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand how criminal trials work. Beyond reasonable doubt does not require witnesses of the crime. Otherwise very few prosecutions would get up.

Circumstantial evidences is very powerful. Look at the Dawson conviction to see it at work.
 
2014 poisoning in Canberra

"In 2014, Woolworths was accused of selling the mushrooms accidentally at a Canberra store after a woman fell ill. She had to have a liver transplant and was in a coma for a week after ingesting the death caps. The woman was insistent the mushrooms could only have been purchased from the supermarket chain. It was a claim vociferously denied by Woolworths. Health officials in the ACT cleared Woolworths after an investigation and said it was more likely the death caps had been picked from the ground after heavy rain in Canberra.* They can be found wild across many parts of Australia." link
*See this link among others. Some background information on the present case here.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
"In 2014, Woolworths was accused of selling the mushrooms accidentally at a Canberra store after a woman fell ill. She had to have a liver transplant and was in a coma for a week after ingesting the death caps. The woman was insistent the mushrooms could only have been purchased from the supermarket chain. It was a claim vociferously denied by Woolworths. Health officials in the ACT cleared Woolworths after an investigation and said it was more likely the death caps had been picked from the ground after heavy rain in Canberra.* They can be found wild across many parts of Australia." link
*See this link among others. Some background information on the present case here.
Click to expand...

It's a particular risk in Canberra because of the Oak trees.

(Canberra has two "cork oak" forests.)
 
I had a flash of inspiration, she wanted people to suffer but not be dead.
Her prior form on husband says as much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom