Mushroom killer arrested

change of plans

My conjecture is that she was planning a murder-suicide, but when she realized that her husband would not be there, she did not eat her own meal. Why she would not have just throw everyone's food into the trash is not something that this hypothesis explains, and I would happily jettison it in light of new information.
 
The trial has started.

www.theguardian.com

Erin Patterson concocted cancer diagnosis to ensure children missed fatal mushroom lunch, murder trial hears

Patterson, 50, faces three charges of murder and one charge of attempted murder relating to a beef wellington lunch she served at her house in South Gippsland in 2023
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

I’m in Eastern Europe now, and it is featuring in the news!

Anyway, the prosecution has withdrawn the attempted murder charges. That’s understandable. Even though, if convicted of murder, she would then be guilty of attempted murder, it would not likely increase her sentence.

Anyway, no surprises at all so far, and I doubt there will be. She certainly will not give evidence, and I can’t see how the facts which led to her arrest will be refuted.
 
a_unique_person said:
She has testified in her defence. That's highly unusual. The prosecution is going to have fun.
Click to expand...


Why is that unusual? Surely the accused would want to testify in their defence in many cases?

I presume you mean as a defence witness rather than as the accused?
 
jimbob said:
Why is that unusual? Surely the accused would want to testify in their defence in many cases?

I presume you mean as a defence witness rather than as the accused?
Click to expand...
In Australia it is very rare. After all, the defence doesn’t have to prove anything, and the accused is usually an awkward, inexpert and unconvincing witness.
 
jeremyp said:
It's all very well testifying in your own defence, but it gives the prosecution the opportunity to cross examine you.
Click to expand...
Can't they question you anyway?

You can probably work out that I don't have much knowledge of court systems. But surely the prosecution can at least question the defendant.
 
jimbob said:
Can't they question you anyway?

You can probably work out that I don't have much knowledge of court systems. But surely the prosecution can at least question the defendant.
Click to expand...
I would suspect with the Australia legal system being based on the English system you have a right to silence as we have in the UK.
 
Darat said:
I would suspect with the Australia legal system being based on the English system you have a right to silence as we have in the UK.
Click to expand...
I naively assumed many people would decide to present their account. But I guess that's where the defence barrister comes in
 
Trebuchet said:
Because it's usually not a good idea. Most defendants are, in fact, guilty. And often think they are smarter than the police or the prosecutors who can now cross-examine them. They aren't.
Click to expand...
Even if you are innocent, a skilled prosecutor might be able to manipulate you into looking untrustworthy or unsympathetic from the jury's point of view.
 
Most court proceedings I see, when the accused insists on presenting their account, the first thing they do is admit to the crime, on the record, in front of the prosecutor, immediately after being told that anything they say can and will be used against them in court.

The usual train of thought seems to be that they have in mind some extenuating circumstance that will transform their factual guilt into a gracious dismissal of the charges, if they can but articulate it in front of the judge.

These scenes very often lead to a mad scramble of defense, prosecution, and judge all rushing to tell the defendant to shut the hell up before he makes things even worse for himself.

The most hilarious variation is when the defendant is trying to take a plea deal, but desperately wants the judge to know that even though he's pleading guilty, he didn't actually do it. This results in immediate rejection of the plea deal, and a trial date being set for the defendant.
 
The police probably questioned the defendant before they were charged. If done correctly there should be nothing else for the defendant to say.
 
NPR reported, "Prosecutors say the patients were not immediately given the antidote because there was a lack of evidence to confirm that's what they had ingested, and their conditions deteriorated over the following days even as they were treated. Doctors concluded that the illness was "unsurvivable" for Heather Wilkinson, Donald Patterson and Gail Patterson." The AGE reported, "The pharmacist told Morgan there wasn’t enough antidote for four patients but said they would obtain it from another hospital." This does not bear on the question of innocence or guilt, but it does raise a question or two.
 
theprestige said:
Most court proceedings I see, when the accused insists on presenting their account, the first thing they do is admit to the crime, on the record, in front of the prosecutor, immediately after being told that anything they say can and will be used against them in court.

The usual train of thought seems to be that they have in mind some extenuating circumstance that will transform their factual guilt into a gracious dismissal of the charges, if they can but articulate it in front of the judge.

These scenes very often lead to a mad scramble of defense, prosecution, and judge all rushing to tell the defendant to shut the hell up before he makes things even worse for himself.

The most hilarious variation is when the defendant is trying to take a plea deal, but desperately wants the judge to know that even though he's pleading guilty, he didn't actually do it. This results in immediate rejection of the plea deal, and a trial date being set for the defendant.
Click to expand...
I'm a massive fan of the videos of arraignment hearings where the judge reads the charges, asks the defendant if they understand them, and then the defendant, to the horror of their counsel, proceeds to say something along the lines of "I don't understand. I threatened him with a knife and stole his wallet, but..."
 
malbui said:
I'm a massive fan of the videos of arraignment hearings where the judge reads the charges, asks the defendant if they understand them, and then the defendant, to the horror of their counsel, proceeds to say something along the lines of "I don't understand. I threatened him with a knife and stole his wallet, but..."
Click to expand...
Right? Or the, "I'm taking the plea to get a lesser charge, but your honor should know I didn't do it..."
 
Chris_Halkides said:
NPR reported, "Prosecutors say the patients were not immediately given the antidote because there was a lack of evidence to confirm that's what they had ingested, and their conditions deteriorated over the following days even as they were treated. Doctors concluded that the illness was "unsurvivable" for Heather Wilkinson, Donald Patterson and Gail Patterson." The AGE reported, "The pharmacist told Morgan there wasn’t enough antidote for four patients but said they would obtain it from another hospital." This does not bear on the question of innocence or guilt, but it does raise a question or two.
Click to expand...
There is no specific 'antidote' to Arminata poisoning, the closest is Silibinin and that's still experimental. Supportive treatment is possible and generally reduces mortality from ~70% to around ~25%.
a_unique_person said:
They wouldn't expect deliberate poisoning.
Click to expand...
But accidental poisoning is possible.
 
catsmate said:
There is no specific 'antidote' to Arminata poisoning, the closest is Silibinin and that's still experimental. Supportive treatment is possible and generally reduces mortality from ~70% to around ~25%.

But accidental poisoning is possible.
Click to expand...
True. The person who cooked the meal could have helped and provided some useful information.
 
The questions surrounding treatment are relevant, in the sense that (assuming that she is guilty), she might have given more information sooner, leading to faster treatment. There is a 1999 report on using N-acetylcysteine, in order to reduce liver damage, but another report was negative. There are also reports from 2023 on a possible antidote. "The paper says that the enzyme STT3B is required for alpha-amanitin toxicity which can be blocked by the chemical indocyanine green (ICG), a possible antidote for A. phalloides poisoning."
 
Last edited:
This explains a lot. Is her defence counsel trying to help get her convicted? They thought it could be mushrooms so she tells them the mushrooms were bought at the supermarket.

“We had a very brief conversation. I remember him asking to confirm if I was the cook. I thought he asked me where the ingredients in the [beef] Wellington came from. Did I make them or buy them premade, and where did the stuff come from,” she told the court.

Patterson responded that she’d bought the ingredients from Woolworths, and asked why he was inquiring. She told the court that he said: “We’re concerned you’ve been exposed to death cap mushrooms.”

Patterson said she was shocked and confused.

“I was just expecting to come in for saline for gastro.

“I didn’t see how death cap mushrooms could be in the meal, and the information that I had was that I had diarrhoea, Don and Gail had been a bit unwell, but that’s all I knew.
Click to expand...
www.theage.com.au

Erin Patterson murder trial LIVE: How childhood memories inspired the centrepiece dish; Inside Patterson’s kitchen on the day of the deadly mushroom meal

Erin Patterson felt nostalgic and thinking about her mum before a family meal. So she picked a dish that she thought would be special and made it the centrepiece of her lunch. Follow our live coverage.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au
 
Last edited:
Patterson is still insisting that the death cap mushrooms came from Woolworths, Australia’s largest supermarket chain. I just don’t get why she has been advised to say this. Firstly police have found no trace of deadly mushrooms from the suppliers to Woolworths and secondly there has been no mass poisoning which would be expected from a contaminated batch.

There’s not much chance of a not guilty verdict in my view.
 
lionking said:
Patterson is still insisting that the death cap mushrooms came from Woolworths, Australia’s largest supermarket chain. I just don’t get why she has been advised to say this. Firstly police have found no trace of deadly mushrooms from the suppliers to Woolworths and secondly there has been no mass poisoning which would be expected from a contaminated batch.

There’s not much chance of a not guilty verdict in my view.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more.

As far as I can see, from what has hit the press.

1. She researched poisoning online.
2. She visited a website that gave the location of death cap mushrooms.
3. She visited the location of death cap mushrooms.
4. She bought a food dehydrator.
5. She dried and powdered some mushrooms with the dehydrator.
6. She served a meal where her plate was a different colour to the rest.

And most tellingly:

7. She has lied about all of the above and been caught in those lies.

I'll be very disappointed with the jury if they don't find her guilty.
 
catsmate said:
There is no specific 'antidote' to Arminata poisoning, the closest is Silibinin and that's still experimental. Supportive treatment is possible and generally reduces mortality from ~70% to around ~25%.

But accidental poisoning is possible.
Click to expand...
Amanita?
 
Last edited:
I am amazed she made so many mistakes. If she had said "I found these mushrooms and decided to cook them. What do you mean some types are poisonous?" She might have gotten away with it.
If you did any research, make sure you delete your internet history later. Then do not do anything for a few months. If you buy anything make sure it is for something else.

But then first time a person does something they are likely to mess it up.
 
rjh01 said:
I am amazed she made so many mistakes. If she had said "I found these mushrooms and decided to cook them. What do you mean some types are poisonous?" She might have gotten away with it.
If you did any research, make sure you delete your internet history later. Then do not do anything for a few months. If you buy anything make sure it is for something else.

But then first time a person does something they are likely to mess it up.
Click to expand...
Her husband could have been poisoned previously. So this could be regarded as a success.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom