July 7, 2025 • 23 mins
Erin Patterson was found guilty of three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder. Marcus and callers discussed New Zealand's history of poisoners.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
You're listening to the Marcus Lush Nights podcast from News Talk,
said Bud Call eight for some after hours chat. Marcus
Lush Knights on news Talk said, b.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
It does make me wonder. I mean, obviously it was premeditated.
Obviously she went out of her way to try and
kill her husband's family. But if she had done that,
the bit that I can't work out why she made
such a poor job of it, because obviously someone that's
(00:41):
free smart, worked as an air traffic controller, had the
Internet and the likes, and I just wonder why in
fact that she didn't go about it differently. I mean
spent some of the time thinking that if I was
going to kill my family with mushrooms, how would I
do it? And I think the mistake that she made
(01:05):
and you might want to challenge me or have your
own thoughts on this, if you were going to kill
your family with mushrooms. What I've come to the conclusion
is it's not a bad way to do it, but
the only way to do it is to make out
(01:26):
its next And so the only way would be to
make out you are a forager and would to be
cocky Beef Wellington and say, oh well, I'm into foraging,
are foraged some mushrooms and then kill them all with
the death caps? Is they got that wrong? So you'd
want to be googling foraging mushrooms, but not googling death caps.
And she herself would have to pretend she was vegetarians
(01:48):
as you'd meet them, or something along those lines. That
to me, would be the only way she'd get around it.
But the way that I just can't, for love me
think how someone that had went to all that effort
over a number of months ago, it took a long
time to get the death caps and throwing away the
old d hydrator and then pretend she was ill when
they all got ill. All seems frue three clumsy. So
(02:13):
what she needed to do was to make out it
was next And I can't work out why she didn't
do that, because the whole excuse that she'd brought mushrooms
from an Asian shop that must have been death caps,
well that wouldn't happen otherwise eveyone that brought them from
that shop would be dead. And some people said, we
discussed this earlier, that in fact that she that the
(02:39):
plan went awry because she thought that no one would
survive the event there would be no witnesses. But even
if there were no witnesses, I forget having dinner with
it three or four. Even if there were no witnesses,
toxicology would say straight away it was deathcap mushrooms, and
the investigation would have been exactly the same. They would
have found the dehydrat and found the messages, and she
(03:01):
would have been guilty. The only thing they wouldn't have
known if the survivor hadn't survived would be that they
didn't that she ate her dinner on a different colored plate.
That would be the only bit that was different. So
if you've got any thoughts, I know a lot of
people follow this case. You've got any thoughts on it? Yes,
(03:21):
And look, there was no surprise with the verdict. The
only surprise for me was the verdict took so long.
I thought they'd be done and dusted in two days.
But you don't know what happens with verdict.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
With juries.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
It might have been one person that needed to have convincing,
some stick in the mud. There could be always someone
that supposed the justice system and wants to sort of
be disruptive. And of course also they might have taken
their time because they've been through sitting through nine weeks
and they wanted to chill out and enjoy a week
in a hotel. That would be my take on that one.
(03:52):
But yeah, though would be done in two three weeks.
I was surprised it took so long. In fact, when
the verdict came out today, I was surprised because I
thought the verdic had already been you know, I'd forgotten
about the trial. So there we go that to that. Anyway,
if you've got to comment about that about Aaron Patterson,
then they say, of course she'll go away for a
long time. I don't know how old she's now. She's
(04:13):
almost fifty, I think she is. I'm pretty sure he's
about that age. She'll get fifty years. She won't be out.
I wouldn't imagine, and I can't imagine they'll be appealing,
And I don't think it'd be one of those things. Also,
I don't think we be one of those cases where
she will convince people that she's innocent and there will
be a large number of people kind of advocating for
her release. It doesn't seem to have It doesn't seem
(04:35):
to be that kind of a case. The evidence seemed
quite straightforward, and the evidence seemed quite conclusive to me.
There was nothing a think hang about. That's not going
to be right, That doesn't seem quite right. She's been
stitched up. Anyway, you might want to comment, oh, eight
hundred eighty, she's fifty, so if she gets ten years
for each person she killed in five years for a
(04:56):
tempted murder, she's not out for a while, if at all. Anyway,
there we go, oh eight hundred eighty. Today you might
have been following that. If you've got anything to say
about that, I'd like to hear from you, because, certainly
is it's gone the way I expected. But yeah, I
just don't know what she should have done differently. I
know that's sort of kind of a carb, but no
(05:16):
lot of you ever died. Of those true crime stories.
You might say something that have something to say about that,
what would have you done differently? But yeah, I think
the only way to poison your family these days would
be to make out it was an accident, and you
have to be pretty careful.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
To you know.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
I think that you might manage to convince a jury
if you're a convincing kind of a person, or you
managed to act like you're dearly innocent, you might manage
to do it. That would be my only take on
that one, that you could pretend that you've done it
just because you've got the wrong mushrooms. You've got the
death caps. Get in touch eight hundred and eighty tirty
(05:54):
nine two nine two to text. I can see that
one of the stories of the Daily Mails is Aaron
Patterson's accused of tampering with prison food that made an
inmate sick while rating for the trial to begin. She
had a job in the kitchen at Dame Phillip Frost Jail,
which seems surprising. Anyway, Get in touch, Jackie, it's Marcus. Welcome,
good evening, Oh, good evening, Marcus.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
I just wanted to say, did you know that they
gave each of those jurors four hundred pages from the
judge to read. Well, I was thinking that's a lot
of pages for this, and that's maybe why it was
a week. And also I've always wondered what is the
motive because she's got two young children.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Now it's really interesting you say that, Jackie, because I
hadn't followed the case at all. Well, and about two
weeks ago you know, we spent some time talking about
on the show, and a lot of people finded it
quite closely. And from my recollection, she'd lent, she inherited
(06:55):
some money and she'd lent I think I've got this
right something. Look, correctly, she'd lent members of her husband's
family money that that she regretted or there was some
confusion about money. And look, I don't know whether this
was a way to get the money back or it
(07:16):
was out of spite, but I completely agree with you.
It seemed it seemed to be for someone that for
something that seemed so premeditated, there seemed to be no
good outcome for it, you know, because of course, you know,
she's got those kids who she won't see anymore, only
at visiting time. So I can't work it out at all.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
No, And also did you know that before this dinner
she'd already had a poison her husband, yes, had he
been in hospital, And so you know, I just think
it's all I don't know whether she's got mental unwellness
or whatever whatever her motus is, it's not it didn't
really come out, and.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
They certainly didn't. They certainly didn't try and claim that
she had mental unwellness. You know, her defense didn't play
that at all. So yeah, I can't quote, I can't quote,
but but yeah, and of course by all accounts, they
say she loved her in law's like she loved her
own family, so that's bizarre as well.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
Yes, well, I'll be interesting. It's interesting listening to other
people's points of view. They might see a number. She's
fifty years old.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
She is, she said, yeah, and I think Jackie. Now
a lot more reporting is coming out about the case
because they had cut you know, I've seen in the
last couple of hours that all sorts of behind the
scenes stories are coming out because now they can you know,
it would all have been prejudicial. So there's a lot
more information coming across. So I'll try and read some
of that during the news as well. But thanks for that. Yeah,
I still can't work up with the motives. So it
(08:46):
might be a case you've been following. Eight hundred and
eighty ten eighty. It's saying on the BBC website, why
did Aaron Patterson do it? What beffol police? There was
a question of motive. Simon told the trial he and
Aaron had initially remained chatting in Emica after they're split.
That changed in twenty twenty two when the couple done
having disagreements, have a finances child, supports schools and properties.
(09:12):
She especially gone on with dad. They she'd a love
of knowledge and learning. But yeah, so I think there
was something to do with money. But anyway, someone would
have done a deeper dive into than I have and
get in touch numbers eight hundred and eighty ten eighty. Jeff,
it's Marcus. Good evening, you're there, Jeff.
Speaker 5 (09:34):
Oh yeah, sorry about that. I was listening to all
her comments. I reckon this is there's my thoughts. All
the things that she did and said to me all
added up. She planned to kill that family. Clearly, don't
(09:54):
really know what the relationship was like between her and
her husband and the family.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
Point that that split and he tried to kill her before.
Speaker 5 (10:07):
Yeah, she planned it and soda and today I was
very happy. I wasn't surprised that they found her guilty
at all because of the circumstances and the things she
said and about the mushrooms and about the d hydraser
and she claimed that she had cancer, but we got
(10:30):
clear of that.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Well, I think I think the whole I think the
whole whole idea of the cancer was because they that
was going to be the excuse to get everyone around
for dinner to talk about who was going to look
after the children because she had trouble getting the people
to come around for dinner. You know, you can't kill
people with beef Wellington, least they around at your house,
I guess.
Speaker 5 (10:51):
But I was not going to solve the problem of
looking after the children or or who was going.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
To knock up the well Ironically, ironically, she didn't have
Canca say she could look after the children, so that
was fine. Now she can't because she's in jail.
Speaker 5 (11:06):
Well yeah, well a place where she deserves to be.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Oh, there's no doubt about that. Yeah, okay, Jeff, Yeah,
fair enough.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Good on you.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Just reading about the poisoning in the Canterbury case. It
was called a krylamide monomer, which I don't know if
it's got a more ordinary name, but it was put
on the world. No, there were two trials for that,
but the but there was no conviction. A christ Shyness
(11:41):
was clear of attempting to murder him. So yeah, first
trial ended in a hung jury. The jury in the
second trial acquitted her, so I guess it's an unsolved one.
They were none the wiser with that one. Sixteen away
from ten Mone of his markets welcome were talking about
(12:02):
the trial Marcus. In late nineteen ninety two Professor David Lloyd,
a plant scientist, that the Avista Canterbury's then experienced a
sudden collapse in coma, with suspicions of poisoning, possibly arstic.
He had just become a Fellow of the Royal Society
of London, recognized for his groundbreaking plant research. The cause
of the coma remained a mystery, and he tragedy passed
(12:24):
away thirteen years later after a prolonged period of paralysis
and blindness. Marcus, the All Blacks did not win the
French game. They just scored more points. How we look
at it now, what I failed by a bunch of professional,
high paid players. Fancy suggesting they are a rusty or
(12:48):
lack of game time. It's their job to be cohesive
and prepared and stop the World Cup. Talk it to
four year cyclic waste of time, money and status.
Speaker 6 (12:59):
Brilliant.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Someone said the whole poisoning case in Timu eighteen eighty six.
I don't know about that one, but you might know
lines are free. We're talking about your reaction to the
verdict and poisoning in general. It seems as though you
need to be a university academic to get away with it.
And I shouldn't say that sounds libelous. We'll attempt it
(13:22):
to get away with that's a situation with Bauer and
Duned and certainly anyway, get in touch you want to talk.
My name is Marcus. Welcome, eight hundred and eighty, ten eighty.
Your reaction to the case, if you've been following it,
and poisoning in general, looks quite complicated, the whole poisoning case,
(13:46):
although imagine with science the word as it's harder to
get away with Now fourteen to ten, Simon, it's Marcus.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
Good evening, Good evening, Marcus.
Speaker 6 (13:55):
How are you good?
Speaker 2 (13:56):
Thank you?
Speaker 7 (13:56):
Simon.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
Marcus. She touched on the Northern poisoning of the elderly gentlemen. Yes,
which are the case still not resolved?
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Yes?
Speaker 3 (14:09):
What are your thoughts on this?
Speaker 2 (14:11):
I haven't really followed it because it was one of
those ones that I just assumed that there would be
a fairly easy one to a fairly easy one to
solve and I was surprised to see that it was unsolved.
He had he had alcohol left in his letter box
that was full of paraqua. Is that correct?
Speaker 6 (14:28):
Correct?
Speaker 8 (14:29):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Are you involved with the Simon?
Speaker 3 (14:33):
No, I'm not, but I've followed it quite closely.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Because the family suspects. The family suspects someone, don't.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
They Well possibly so, I mean I've just followed it
through the media. But the way I see it is
he was a well liked and received member of the
Norseland community.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
So I think for someone to do drop off a
bottle of poison to someone's letter box, there must be
a level of resentment or something that's unresolved, perhaps to
motivate someone to do such a thing. The fact that
the police haven't found anyone, it just sets in my mind.
(15:16):
Who would who would go to this extreme to drop
off a bottle of poison to kill someone?
Speaker 2 (15:21):
It's ah And while you're talking like that, it must
be pretty obvious talking to their family who would be
motivated to do that, wouldn't they? Because I mean, who
would poison you, Simon? Would there be any people?
Speaker 3 (15:36):
No? No, no, no, not at all.
Speaker 8 (15:38):
No.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
I can't and if I got poisoned I don't think
probably the police would have you know, there wouldn't be
any likely Yeah, so it would be pretty obvious, and
I think it either be a neighbor or it would
be someone with a business deal or someone.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Well, it's hard to say because I think the New
Zealand Police are quite good at following leads and potential
you know who done it sort of things, who would
have the motive? It's I think that's the first port
of call for most detectives. But to be this far
down the track and there's still nobody being charged or
even you know, highly suspected, is a very interesting case
(16:17):
in my mind.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
And I guess in the country because up near Hiraquino,
I think there's probably no there's no probably footage of
dumping off the wine and I'm sure it's easy with
a bottle of wine to clear the bottle, so it
hasn't got any fingerprints. So you've really got nothing to.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Go on, have you.
Speaker 8 (16:36):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (16:36):
Possibly so, But I mean somebody out there knows something,
and whether it's the wrong address, I mean, I have
a lot of faith in New Zealand police, but to
consider that with this far down the track and hasn't
been anybody charged. It's a little bit of a mystery.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Would you drink winefles? I suppose most people would drink
wineffles left the letterbox' Well.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
I followed a little bit of this case, and apparently
it was quite sort of the practice to drop off
cakes and biscuits and jams within the rural community just
as a thank you for this, etc. So he believed
that he'd obviously done a favor for somebody, and possibly
they'd returned a bottle of wine. But I mean, there's
(17:17):
some in my mind, Marcus, there's a sinister motive behind
why this has happened. Whether it's the wrong address possibly,
or whether there's something that a lot of us don't
know or the police can't find, is why this has happened.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
Good evening, Bethet's Marcus, welcome, good evening.
Speaker 8 (17:36):
Hello. I remember that wine bottle paraqua poisoning, and at
the time, I thought, because it's statistically proven women poison
and the police and everyone were looking for a man
that had a motive against the guy who died, who
(18:00):
drank the wine, and I thinking it's probably a woman.
Speaker 6 (18:06):
It's good points and look at the mushroom case.
Speaker 8 (18:09):
A woman, women poison. Ninety nine percent of serial killers,
torment animals, win their children and abuse animals eighty five
percent of murderers. Up until nineteen twenty seven in New Zealand,
we kept a registry of children who did that to
(18:33):
animals because we kept an eye out for what they
were going to do in the future.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Up until win Bith.
Speaker 8 (18:44):
Round about nineteen twenty seven in New Zealand, they had
a registry and they kept a chick on it and
someone went, no, no, no, forget about that. But if
you look at children who abuse small animals, they go
on to murder.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Some go on to yeah, a lot. But I think
you probably say, if you look at murderous past life,
that there can be crawelty to animals, but probably not
so much the reverse. But yeah, I'm hearing you. I
think Beth with the situation with the guy in the
Far North, he wrung his mate and said he named
the guy that had murdered him.
Speaker 7 (19:28):
But the police.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
But the police just can't get any proof because you know,
you've got to have to, you're going to have the
to go to court, you're going to have evidence, and
all they've got is a bottle of wine. So it
makes them. Yeah, I think that the guy. They said
the guy was a functioning alcoholic whatever that is. Hi, Richard,
it's Marcus. Welcome.
Speaker 6 (19:49):
Hi Marcus. I got a bit disturbed at your sort
of line of saying, you know, how could she got
away with getting rid of the family, which seems to them.
I don't think you have to murder your family to
get rid of them, whether you get away with it
or not. You know, there's only three members of your
(20:11):
family that have any legal control over you. First as
your parents, who can cut you out of their will,
second is your wife with Matrimonial Property Act, and the
third are children up to the age of eighteen, I think,
and all of those you know, can be sort of
(20:31):
separated from without.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
Being I agree, I agree, But I just what Richard,
my thinking was is people love true crime podcasts and
TV shows, and a lot of people like to think
like killers, And I just want to know how people
thought she should have done it differently and more effectively
to have got away with it, because it it looks
(20:54):
like if you managed to accidentally poison your family accidentally
on purpose, you probably could so enough doubt to get
away with it.
Speaker 6 (21:05):
Yes, but you know, I think it's a tragic logicality
that exists in the human species that think, if we
can't live with somebody more, we've got to kill them.
And you know, it happens so often. It's just you know,
whereas really, you know, however you do it, you have
(21:26):
to live with yourself for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
Well, I think people get people get resentful, they get
fixated on one thing. They think, well, if only they
weren't here, and then they I don't know how you
break those thinking patterns.
Speaker 6 (21:39):
No, they are a bit prevalent.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
But she's got a long time to think about it now.
I mean, that's that's for her in prison.
Speaker 6 (21:48):
Yeah, it's amazing how something like that. I mean, when
you think of all the people that are dying at
the moment, how so much focus goes on that one
poor tragic person.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Well that I mean, you do look at it, you
do look at it. And I mean it was a
remarkably effective technique.
Speaker 6 (22:11):
Wasn't it physically effective to.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Kill three people at one setting? Was just to convince
them to eat something that was quite palatable. I mean,
it's no mean feat rather Shakespearean, yeah, or I think
in the Roman times a lot of people poison people
with mushrooms. But I don't think it was. I think
everyone believed she was going to get There was no
(22:35):
surprise with you went surprised by the verdict?
Speaker 1 (22:37):
Were you no?
Speaker 6 (22:39):
And I want to be honest, I wasn't that interested
in and I think you know, it's a tragic situation that really,
yeah is in terms of the bigger picture, is not
that consequential.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
Nice to talk, Richard, Thank.
Speaker 7 (22:52):
You even more. Maybe time far away
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Whatever won rier because for more from Marcus slash Nights,
listen live to News Talks at B from eight pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Marcus Lush Nights podcast from News Talk,
said Bud Call eight for some after hours chat. Marcus
Lush Knights on news Talk said, b.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
It does make me wonder. I mean, obviously it was premeditated.
Obviously she went out of her way to try and
kill her husband's family. But if she had done that,
the bit that I can't work out why she made
such a poor job of it, because obviously someone that's
(00:41):
free smart, worked as an air traffic controller, had the
Internet and the likes, and I just wonder why in
fact that she didn't go about it differently. I mean
spent some of the time thinking that if I was
going to kill my family with mushrooms, how would I
do it? And I think the mistake that she made
(01:05):
and you might want to challenge me or have your
own thoughts on this, if you were going to kill
your family with mushrooms. What I've come to the conclusion
is it's not a bad way to do it, but
the only way to do it is to make out
(01:26):
its next And so the only way would be to
make out you are a forager and would to be
cocky Beef Wellington and say, oh well, I'm into foraging,
are foraged some mushrooms and then kill them all with
the death caps? Is they got that wrong? So you'd
want to be googling foraging mushrooms, but not googling death caps.
And she herself would have to pretend she was vegetarians
(01:48):
as you'd meet them, or something along those lines. That
to me, would be the only way she'd get around it.
But the way that I just can't, for love me
think how someone that had went to all that effort
over a number of months ago, it took a long
time to get the death caps and throwing away the
old d hydrator and then pretend she was ill when
they all got ill. All seems frue three clumsy. So
(02:13):
what she needed to do was to make out it
was next And I can't work out why she didn't
do that, because the whole excuse that she'd brought mushrooms
from an Asian shop that must have been death caps,
well that wouldn't happen otherwise eveyone that brought them from
that shop would be dead. And some people said, we
discussed this earlier, that in fact that she that the
(02:39):
plan went awry because she thought that no one would
survive the event there would be no witnesses. But even
if there were no witnesses, I forget having dinner with
it three or four. Even if there were no witnesses,
toxicology would say straight away it was deathcap mushrooms, and
the investigation would have been exactly the same. They would
have found the dehydrat and found the messages, and she
(03:01):
would have been guilty. The only thing they wouldn't have
known if the survivor hadn't survived would be that they
didn't that she ate her dinner on a different colored plate.
That would be the only bit that was different. So
if you've got any thoughts, I know a lot of
people follow this case. You've got any thoughts on it? Yes,
(03:21):
And look, there was no surprise with the verdict. The
only surprise for me was the verdict took so long.
I thought they'd be done and dusted in two days.
But you don't know what happens with verdict.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
With juries.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
It might have been one person that needed to have convincing,
some stick in the mud. There could be always someone
that supposed the justice system and wants to sort of
be disruptive. And of course also they might have taken
their time because they've been through sitting through nine weeks
and they wanted to chill out and enjoy a week
in a hotel. That would be my take on that one.
(03:52):
But yeah, though would be done in two three weeks.
I was surprised it took so long. In fact, when
the verdict came out today, I was surprised because I
thought the verdic had already been you know, I'd forgotten
about the trial. So there we go that to that. Anyway,
if you've got to comment about that about Aaron Patterson,
then they say, of course she'll go away for a
long time. I don't know how old she's now. She's
(04:13):
almost fifty, I think she is. I'm pretty sure he's
about that age. She'll get fifty years. She won't be out.
I wouldn't imagine, and I can't imagine they'll be appealing,
And I don't think it'd be one of those things. Also,
I don't think we be one of those cases where
she will convince people that she's innocent and there will
be a large number of people kind of advocating for
her release. It doesn't seem to have It doesn't seem
(04:35):
to be that kind of a case. The evidence seemed
quite straightforward, and the evidence seemed quite conclusive to me.
There was nothing a think hang about. That's not going
to be right, That doesn't seem quite right. She's been
stitched up. Anyway, you might want to comment, oh, eight
hundred eighty, she's fifty, so if she gets ten years
for each person she killed in five years for a
(04:56):
tempted murder, she's not out for a while, if at all. Anyway,
there we go, oh eight hundred eighty. Today you might
have been following that. If you've got anything to say
about that, I'd like to hear from you, because, certainly
is it's gone the way I expected. But yeah, I
just don't know what she should have done differently. I
know that's sort of kind of a carb, but no
(05:16):
lot of you ever died. Of those true crime stories.
You might say something that have something to say about that,
what would have you done differently? But yeah, I think
the only way to poison your family these days would
be to make out it was an accident, and you
have to be pretty careful.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
To you know.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
I think that you might manage to convince a jury
if you're a convincing kind of a person, or you
managed to act like you're dearly innocent, you might manage
to do it. That would be my only take on
that one, that you could pretend that you've done it
just because you've got the wrong mushrooms. You've got the
death caps. Get in touch eight hundred and eighty tirty
(05:54):
nine two nine two to text. I can see that
one of the stories of the Daily Mails is Aaron
Patterson's accused of tampering with prison food that made an
inmate sick while rating for the trial to begin. She
had a job in the kitchen at Dame Phillip Frost Jail,
which seems surprising. Anyway, Get in touch, Jackie, it's Marcus. Welcome,
good evening, Oh, good evening, Marcus.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
I just wanted to say, did you know that they
gave each of those jurors four hundred pages from the
judge to read. Well, I was thinking that's a lot
of pages for this, and that's maybe why it was
a week. And also I've always wondered what is the
motive because she's got two young children.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Now it's really interesting you say that, Jackie, because I
hadn't followed the case at all. Well, and about two
weeks ago you know, we spent some time talking about
on the show, and a lot of people finded it
quite closely. And from my recollection, she'd lent, she inherited
(06:55):
some money and she'd lent I think I've got this
right something. Look, correctly, she'd lent members of her husband's
family money that that she regretted or there was some
confusion about money. And look, I don't know whether this
was a way to get the money back or it
(07:16):
was out of spite, but I completely agree with you.
It seemed it seemed to be for someone that for
something that seemed so premeditated, there seemed to be no
good outcome for it, you know, because of course, you know,
she's got those kids who she won't see anymore, only
at visiting time. So I can't work it out at all.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
No, And also did you know that before this dinner
she'd already had a poison her husband, yes, had he
been in hospital, And so you know, I just think
it's all I don't know whether she's got mental unwellness
or whatever whatever her motus is, it's not it didn't
really come out, and.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
They certainly didn't. They certainly didn't try and claim that
she had mental unwellness. You know, her defense didn't play
that at all. So yeah, I can't quote, I can't quote,
but but yeah, and of course by all accounts, they
say she loved her in law's like she loved her
own family, so that's bizarre as well.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
Yes, well, I'll be interesting. It's interesting listening to other
people's points of view. They might see a number. She's
fifty years old.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
She is, she said, yeah, and I think Jackie. Now
a lot more reporting is coming out about the case
because they had cut you know, I've seen in the
last couple of hours that all sorts of behind the
scenes stories are coming out because now they can you know,
it would all have been prejudicial. So there's a lot
more information coming across. So I'll try and read some
of that during the news as well. But thanks for that. Yeah,
I still can't work up with the motives. So it
(08:46):
might be a case you've been following. Eight hundred and
eighty ten eighty. It's saying on the BBC website, why
did Aaron Patterson do it? What beffol police? There was
a question of motive. Simon told the trial he and
Aaron had initially remained chatting in Emica after they're split.
That changed in twenty twenty two when the couple done
having disagreements, have a finances child, supports schools and properties.
(09:12):
She especially gone on with dad. They she'd a love
of knowledge and learning. But yeah, so I think there
was something to do with money. But anyway, someone would
have done a deeper dive into than I have and
get in touch numbers eight hundred and eighty ten eighty. Jeff,
it's Marcus. Good evening, you're there, Jeff.
Speaker 5 (09:34):
Oh yeah, sorry about that. I was listening to all
her comments. I reckon this is there's my thoughts. All
the things that she did and said to me all
added up. She planned to kill that family. Clearly, don't
(09:54):
really know what the relationship was like between her and
her husband and the family.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
Point that that split and he tried to kill her before.
Speaker 5 (10:07):
Yeah, she planned it and soda and today I was
very happy. I wasn't surprised that they found her guilty
at all because of the circumstances and the things she
said and about the mushrooms and about the d hydraser
and she claimed that she had cancer, but we got
(10:30):
clear of that.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Well, I think I think the whole I think the
whole whole idea of the cancer was because they that
was going to be the excuse to get everyone around
for dinner to talk about who was going to look
after the children because she had trouble getting the people
to come around for dinner. You know, you can't kill
people with beef Wellington, least they around at your house,
I guess.
Speaker 5 (10:51):
But I was not going to solve the problem of
looking after the children or or who was going.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
To knock up the well Ironically, ironically, she didn't have
Canca say she could look after the children, so that
was fine. Now she can't because she's in jail.
Speaker 5 (11:06):
Well yeah, well a place where she deserves to be.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Oh, there's no doubt about that. Yeah, okay, Jeff, Yeah,
fair enough.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Good on you.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Just reading about the poisoning in the Canterbury case. It
was called a krylamide monomer, which I don't know if
it's got a more ordinary name, but it was put
on the world. No, there were two trials for that,
but the but there was no conviction. A christ Shyness
(11:41):
was clear of attempting to murder him. So yeah, first
trial ended in a hung jury. The jury in the
second trial acquitted her, so I guess it's an unsolved one.
They were none the wiser with that one. Sixteen away
from ten Mone of his markets welcome were talking about
(12:02):
the trial Marcus. In late nineteen ninety two Professor David Lloyd,
a plant scientist, that the Avista Canterbury's then experienced a
sudden collapse in coma, with suspicions of poisoning, possibly arstic.
He had just become a Fellow of the Royal Society
of London, recognized for his groundbreaking plant research. The cause
of the coma remained a mystery, and he tragedy passed
(12:24):
away thirteen years later after a prolonged period of paralysis
and blindness. Marcus, the All Blacks did not win the
French game. They just scored more points. How we look
at it now, what I failed by a bunch of professional,
high paid players. Fancy suggesting they are a rusty or
(12:48):
lack of game time. It's their job to be cohesive
and prepared and stop the World Cup. Talk it to
four year cyclic waste of time, money and status.
Speaker 6 (12:59):
Brilliant.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Someone said the whole poisoning case in Timu eighteen eighty six.
I don't know about that one, but you might know
lines are free. We're talking about your reaction to the
verdict and poisoning in general. It seems as though you
need to be a university academic to get away with it.
And I shouldn't say that sounds libelous. We'll attempt it
(13:22):
to get away with that's a situation with Bauer and
Duned and certainly anyway, get in touch you want to talk.
My name is Marcus. Welcome, eight hundred and eighty, ten eighty.
Your reaction to the case, if you've been following it,
and poisoning in general, looks quite complicated, the whole poisoning case,
(13:46):
although imagine with science the word as it's harder to
get away with Now fourteen to ten, Simon, it's Marcus.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
Good evening, Good evening, Marcus.
Speaker 6 (13:55):
How are you good?
Speaker 2 (13:56):
Thank you?
Speaker 7 (13:56):
Simon.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
Marcus. She touched on the Northern poisoning of the elderly gentlemen. Yes,
which are the case still not resolved?
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Yes?
Speaker 3 (14:09):
What are your thoughts on this?
Speaker 2 (14:11):
I haven't really followed it because it was one of
those ones that I just assumed that there would be
a fairly easy one to a fairly easy one to
solve and I was surprised to see that it was unsolved.
He had he had alcohol left in his letter box
that was full of paraqua. Is that correct?
Speaker 6 (14:28):
Correct?
Speaker 8 (14:29):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Are you involved with the Simon?
Speaker 3 (14:33):
No, I'm not, but I've followed it quite closely.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Because the family suspects. The family suspects someone, don't.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
They Well possibly so, I mean I've just followed it
through the media. But the way I see it is
he was a well liked and received member of the
Norseland community.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
So I think for someone to do drop off a
bottle of poison to someone's letter box, there must be
a level of resentment or something that's unresolved, perhaps to
motivate someone to do such a thing. The fact that
the police haven't found anyone, it just sets in my mind.
(15:16):
Who would who would go to this extreme to drop
off a bottle of poison to kill someone?
Speaker 2 (15:21):
It's ah And while you're talking like that, it must
be pretty obvious talking to their family who would be
motivated to do that, wouldn't they? Because I mean, who
would poison you, Simon? Would there be any people?
Speaker 3 (15:36):
No? No, no, no, not at all.
Speaker 8 (15:38):
No.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
I can't and if I got poisoned I don't think
probably the police would have you know, there wouldn't be
any likely Yeah, so it would be pretty obvious, and
I think it either be a neighbor or it would
be someone with a business deal or someone.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Well, it's hard to say because I think the New
Zealand Police are quite good at following leads and potential
you know who done it sort of things, who would
have the motive? It's I think that's the first port
of call for most detectives. But to be this far
down the track and there's still nobody being charged or
even you know, highly suspected, is a very interesting case
(16:17):
in my mind.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
And I guess in the country because up near Hiraquino,
I think there's probably no there's no probably footage of
dumping off the wine and I'm sure it's easy with
a bottle of wine to clear the bottle, so it
hasn't got any fingerprints. So you've really got nothing to.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Go on, have you.
Speaker 8 (16:36):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (16:36):
Possibly so, But I mean somebody out there knows something,
and whether it's the wrong address, I mean, I have
a lot of faith in New Zealand police, but to
consider that with this far down the track and hasn't
been anybody charged. It's a little bit of a mystery.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Would you drink winefles? I suppose most people would drink
wineffles left the letterbox' Well.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
I followed a little bit of this case, and apparently
it was quite sort of the practice to drop off
cakes and biscuits and jams within the rural community just
as a thank you for this, etc. So he believed
that he'd obviously done a favor for somebody, and possibly
they'd returned a bottle of wine. But I mean, there's
(17:17):
some in my mind, Marcus, there's a sinister motive behind
why this has happened. Whether it's the wrong address possibly,
or whether there's something that a lot of us don't
know or the police can't find, is why this has happened.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
Good evening, Bethet's Marcus, welcome, good evening.
Speaker 8 (17:36):
Hello. I remember that wine bottle paraqua poisoning, and at
the time, I thought, because it's statistically proven women poison
and the police and everyone were looking for a man
that had a motive against the guy who died, who
(18:00):
drank the wine, and I thinking it's probably a woman.
Speaker 6 (18:06):
It's good points and look at the mushroom case.
Speaker 8 (18:09):
A woman, women poison. Ninety nine percent of serial killers,
torment animals, win their children and abuse animals eighty five
percent of murderers. Up until nineteen twenty seven in New Zealand,
we kept a registry of children who did that to
(18:33):
animals because we kept an eye out for what they
were going to do in the future.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Up until win Bith.
Speaker 8 (18:44):
Round about nineteen twenty seven in New Zealand, they had
a registry and they kept a chick on it and
someone went, no, no, no, forget about that. But if
you look at children who abuse small animals, they go
on to murder.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Some go on to yeah, a lot. But I think
you probably say, if you look at murderous past life,
that there can be crawelty to animals, but probably not
so much the reverse. But yeah, I'm hearing you. I
think Beth with the situation with the guy in the
Far North, he wrung his mate and said he named
the guy that had murdered him.
Speaker 7 (19:28):
But the police.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
But the police just can't get any proof because you know,
you've got to have to, you're going to have the
to go to court, you're going to have evidence, and
all they've got is a bottle of wine. So it
makes them. Yeah, I think that the guy. They said
the guy was a functioning alcoholic whatever that is. Hi, Richard,
it's Marcus. Welcome.
Speaker 6 (19:49):
Hi Marcus. I got a bit disturbed at your sort
of line of saying, you know, how could she got
away with getting rid of the family, which seems to them.
I don't think you have to murder your family to
get rid of them, whether you get away with it
or not. You know, there's only three members of your
(20:11):
family that have any legal control over you. First as
your parents, who can cut you out of their will,
second is your wife with Matrimonial Property Act, and the
third are children up to the age of eighteen, I think,
and all of those you know, can be sort of
(20:31):
separated from without.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
Being I agree, I agree, But I just what Richard,
my thinking was is people love true crime podcasts and
TV shows, and a lot of people like to think
like killers, And I just want to know how people
thought she should have done it differently and more effectively
to have got away with it, because it it looks
(20:54):
like if you managed to accidentally poison your family accidentally
on purpose, you probably could so enough doubt to get
away with it.
Speaker 6 (21:05):
Yes, but you know, I think it's a tragic logicality
that exists in the human species that think, if we
can't live with somebody more, we've got to kill them.
And you know, it happens so often. It's just you know,
whereas really, you know, however you do it, you have
(21:26):
to live with yourself for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
Well, I think people get people get resentful, they get
fixated on one thing. They think, well, if only they
weren't here, and then they I don't know how you
break those thinking patterns.
Speaker 6 (21:39):
No, they are a bit prevalent.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
But she's got a long time to think about it now.
I mean, that's that's for her in prison.
Speaker 6 (21:48):
Yeah, it's amazing how something like that. I mean, when
you think of all the people that are dying at
the moment, how so much focus goes on that one
poor tragic person.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Well that I mean, you do look at it, you
do look at it. And I mean it was a
remarkably effective technique.
Speaker 6 (22:11):
Wasn't it physically effective to.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Kill three people at one setting? Was just to convince
them to eat something that was quite palatable. I mean,
it's no mean feat rather Shakespearean, yeah, or I think
in the Roman times a lot of people poison people
with mushrooms. But I don't think it was. I think
everyone believed she was going to get There was no
(22:35):
surprise with you went surprised by the verdict?
Speaker 1 (22:37):
Were you no?
Speaker 6 (22:39):
And I want to be honest, I wasn't that interested
in and I think you know, it's a tragic situation that really,
yeah is in terms of the bigger picture, is not
that consequential.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
Nice to talk, Richard, Thank.
Speaker 7 (22:52):
You even more. Maybe time far away
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Whatever won rier because for more from Marcus slash Nights,
listen live to News Talks at B from eight pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.