June 5, 2025 • 31 mins
Australia is watching closely as Erin Patterson faces court over one of the country’s most shocking murder cases. In this episode, we break down the first few weeks of the trial — from courtroom revelations to the evidence surrounding the fatal mushroom lunch in Leongatha.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:17):
Welcome to Exhuming the Truth, the podcast where we delve into
the mysterious worlds of cold cases, missing persons, true
crime, and the fascinating science that is forensics.
I'm forensic scientist and criminologist Asha Walther, and
I am so thrilled to have you with me on this journey as we
dance in the shadows of the world of crime, shining a light
(00:38):
on scientific discovery while becoming another voice for those
who need it most. So grab a drink and get
comfortable while we jump into this episode together.
As always, I would like to extend a content and trigger
warning. This podcast is recommended for
persons over the age of 18 and contains explicit content not
suitable for minors. We will be covering sensitive
(01:00):
content that ranges from sexual assault, physical, mental,
social and emotional abuse, suicide, homicide, murder,
attempted murder, and other violent crimes including crimes
involving weapons and drugs. This often extends to drug
misuse and other harmful and illegal activity.
If you find any content to be distressing, I have listed a
(01:23):
number of resources that may be able to help you in the podcast
notes. I would also like to remind our
listeners that all victims and all perpetrators are someone's
loved 1. So I ask that any discussion in
our group or on our social accounts remain respectful of
that at all times. And by listening today, you
acknowledge that all persons of interest remain innocent until
(01:44):
proven otherwise. Hello ET gang.
It is midday. I am not recording at night
time. I'm recording in the middle of
the day. And that is super bizarre for me
because I don't usually find time during the day for some
reason. It's like so hectic during the
day. I'm trying to organise
everything for the kids and I just can't really concentrate
(02:08):
until night time. But here we are.
So for housekeeping TikTok, let's talk about TikTok.
I can use TikTok if I want to watch something.
Let's be clear on that. I don't have like, I'm not an
avid TikTok user and I'm just going to say like, I am on the
(02:29):
bad side of 30, you know what I'm saying?
So it like takes a little while for me to Scroll down and find
the 90s when I'm signing up to new things online, if you know
what I'm saying. So I think it kind of just hits
you or like a ton of bricks. You are not 18 anymore, Hun.
And things get confusing. So it's taking me a moment to
(02:51):
warm up to TikTok. Although I am good with
technology, it's awfully chaoticover there.
But I am trying to post as much as I can on there about what
cases and what's coming up and things like that.
So just bear with me, OK? This is also a bit of a test
run. I'm hoping there's not too much
like Reverb because I'm in the lounge room and my lounge room
(03:13):
is quite big and it tends to echo, so hopefully that doesn't
happen so I'll apologize in advance.
So anyway, tick tock, that's what's happening.
So you can find us on there under the same name, assuming
the truth and what else is happening.
My mom's moving in. I am so excited.
I know she's probably dreading it but she's moving in for a few
(03:34):
months which is so exciting. I love my mum so much, she's my
best friend ever and I annoy herso much and I call her every day
and just like what else could she be doing except talking to
me, you know? I am the youngest child,
probably the most annoying one, but I rely on her for a lot.
And she's also really great for body doubling.
(03:56):
Fellow neuro spicy people know what I'm saying.
Like when you're trying to do something and like you just
can't get it done unless someone's sitting there with
you. Yeah, I always call her and I'm
like, can you come over so I canclean my cupboard?
And she thinks, why did I come here?
But now she can't think anythingbecause she's going to be living
in my spare room. And I'm so excited that yeah,
that's just for a few months. So that's what's happening.
(04:18):
And also randomly I got these new socks, nothing special.
They're not, you know, they're not ankle socks, they're not
sockets, they're normal socks. And they're just white with a
little bit of black on them. And it's taken me a little
while, OK, they came in a pack of three and this is just the
(04:41):
most stupid story of all time. But they have like 1 sock has an
L and one has an R, right? So it's like, this is for your
left foot and this is for your right.
And I was wearing them the otherday and I was like to my
partner, hey, like, do you like my new socks?
And he's like, what do you mean?Like they're just Wyatt socks?
And I was like, yeah, that they have an Allen art, so I know
(05:03):
which one goes on which foot. And then it never crossed my
mind and until he said he's like, but they're socks, so like
they can go on either foot. So.
Yeah, whoever was in charge of the marketing campaign on those
socks deserves a raise because it worked on me.
But yeah, stupid, stupid random story.
(05:25):
But anyway, that's what's happening.
So today. Oh, actually, it's also winter.
It's June. Happy June.
It's officially winter. I hate winter, but I do love it
for the fact that the farmers get a bit of rain and also hay,
obviously, because I'm a horsey girl.
(05:45):
But I have been chipping away back here on a few business
things. We'll chat about them another
time. I think maybe you do like a
business update episode so that I don't bore everybody.
But as you know, the podcast is on YouTube just as audio right
now. I've got to work out videoing
and all that sort of stuff, but the only reason I'm mentioning
this, this is kind of funny because I got a comment right on
(06:08):
one of the episodes. I don't recall the name of the
person who made the comment, butI mean it's one single comment
so it won't be hard to find. But anyway, the person said that
the introduction to my episodes is way too long and I wanted to
say this. I actually completely agree and
I don't want to be boring, but Ihave to do like a content and
(06:32):
trigger warning. It's a legal requirement.
I have to do it in each episode because obviously it's the right
thing to do for one, and it's a legal reason for two and three,
like everybody's safety and well-being is like the top of my
list. So with that being said, like, I
feel your pain, whoever that was, and my only advice is if
you are not new here and you're sick of listening to the content
(06:54):
warning and my introduction and all that, you can always just
skip ahead a little and save yourself the ball.
But yeah, that, that was amusing.
I got an e-mail about that, but that's my only practical
solution to that problem. Today we are doing a trial recap
and a bit of an update on a highly requested story, which is
(07:17):
the mushroom murders or the mushroom chef or whatever you
shall refer to it as Erin Patterson, who invited her
family members. Well her ex in laws over for
lunch and they died bar one person.
So that's what we're going to gointo.
I actually had written up like Iwas so happy with all of the
(07:38):
stuff and the details I wrote down for this case and then my
Mac didn't update and didn't save my most recent two
documents that I had not yet saved and that was one of them
so I had to redo it. So I feel like I'm missing
something that I don't know whatyet, but hopefully I'm not.
If I am, I apologize but I have done my best to redo.
(07:59):
So let's get into it and stop boring everybody with our
introductions. So the case of Erin Patterson,
it's a high profile legal proceeding in Victoria as we
speak, which involves allegations of intentional
poisoning. Excuse me, intentional.
I nearly said international. It's not international.
(08:20):
It is definitely local intentional poisoning through a
meal containing death cap mushrooms.
If she is convicted you guys, she will face life imprisonment
for the murder charges and then up to 25 years for the attempted
murder charge, which is obviously against the gentleman
who survived. But let's have a little bit of
(08:40):
background, shall we? In the quiet little town of
Leigh Ingatha in Victoria, a family lunch turned fatal on
July the 29th 2023. Aaron Patterson, the accused who
is a 50 year old mother, hosted a lunch that led to the deaths
of her former in laws Don and GAIL Patterson, both aged 70, as
well as Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson, aged 66.
(09:04):
Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson was the sole survivor after a
prolonged hospital stay and a liver transplant which saved his
life. The dishing question you ask?
Well, that's your beef Wellington allegedly containing
lethal death cap mushrooms. Sounds gross but OK, let's
analyse now. Erin Patterson stands trial
(09:26):
facing 3 counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.
This case, unsurprisingly, has captivated the nation, raising
questions about intent, deception and the deadly
potential of foraged foods. Let me take you to the court,
the Supreme Court of Victoria. It's held at the Latrobe Valley
Law Courts in Morwell. And can I tell you, it's chaos,
(09:49):
people trying to get in that courtroom.
The trial commenced on the 29th of April with Justice
Christopher William Beal as the presiding judge.
The prosecution is led by Crown Prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC,
and the defense is represented by Colin Mandy, SC.
So SC is just an abbreviation for senior counsel if you were
(10:09):
wondering. So the jury, so 15 jurors were
selected and started to begin with 10 men, five women, as it's
understood one had to leave and was dismissed from the court for
allegedly potentially discussingthe case with family and
friends. So if you didn't know, in
Victoria, OK, they have a systemwhere all evidence and closing
(10:31):
arguments and all of that is presented.
And then after that the court randomly selects 2 jurors to get
rid of, for lack of a better term, so that they always
ultimately have 12 jurors deliberating on the case.
It's like a safety net or the extras.
Yeah, the extra 2 are a safety net per SE in case anything else
(10:52):
goes wrong and they lose any other jurors, like the first
issue of discussion discussing outside the courtroom or
anything like that. So they always want to have that
final number at the end. It really just safeguards the
number of jurors deciding and makes it even.
I know this is a thing in Victoria.
I'm unsure about other states, so you'll have to look that one
up. But in black and white we have
(11:14):
the state, OK, We're also referred to as the Crown.
So when I'm saying the Crown, itjust means the state and they're
saying that this was an intentional murder.
And then we have Aaron Pattersonas the defence saying, and I
quote, it was a horrible accident.
OK, So that's the argument, plain and simple, clear as day.
So testifying this courtroom, wehave a couple of experts, We
(11:36):
have Adna analyst, we have mycologist, which is a fancy
name for a mushroom specialist. Yes, I said it, a mushroom
specialist. We have a toxicologist and so
forth. So in terms of evidence, the
main pieces of evidence in question OK are the food
dehydrator, digital traces, which is all mobile phone usage
(11:58):
data, search engine information,etcetera.
And then we also have other message exchanges and
interactions on file which are basically being used to
highlight the hostile family situation between Erin Patterson
and her ex in laws. So like I said, the trial
commenced in the Supreme Court where Patterson pleads not
guilty to all three counts of murder and not guilty to the one
(12:21):
count of attempted murder. She asserts that the poison was
a tragic accident. She admits that the lunch
contained death cat mushrooms, however, claims she did not know
that they were poisonous. So that in itself confuses me a
tad. But anyway, so when we're
chatting at the defence, OK, we are going to talk about Erin
Patterson first and foremost, OK, Because she testified and
(12:43):
this was coming up, it's been a few weeks and everyone's like,
is she going to testify? And why are people asking that?
And obviously, it's a case against her.
So we would assume she would talk.
But The thing is, the defense donot have to call her as a
witness. We know now this deep into the
case that she has been called asa witness.
But the reason why they may not call her as a witness is they
(13:05):
might think she's a weak witnessand they might also be hesitant
to put her up there. Basically, if she's up there and
her own team's called her up there, then she's a free agent
for the other side. So prosecution are allowed to
come in and cross examine her and they might have been worried
about that. Turns out they're probably not
because they've chucked her up there anyway.
So on the stand she gets up, shegoes into her own personal
(13:29):
issues. OK, her struggles with self
esteem, weight gain, spiritual changes, a difficult childbirth,
as well as her growing estrangement from the Patterson
family. She expressed her regret over
private Facebook messages where she vented frustrations about
her in laws. She went on to say that the
family dynamics are strained, including issues about child
(13:49):
support and several attempts to reconcile with her estranged
husband Simon. This is of course all Simon's
family, might I add. She denied she initially it said
that she denied faking a cancer diagnosis, but then it said she
admitted faking a cancer diagnosis.
So I think ultimately she did admit that she faked a cancer
(14:09):
diagnosis as a pretense for the lunch, I guess.
So she's been like, oh, I've been diagnosed with cancer.
Can you come over for lunch? Although she cited significant
health anxieties stemming from family history and her immense
distrust in the medical system, I'm really unsure at this point
in time. As it stands, I am actually
(14:30):
unsure how all of this background that she's giving,
unless she's just giving a general background to her life,
which she is. But I'm unsure how her
unhappiness with the medical system relates to the actual
story itself. I don't know if they're going to
go somewhere with that, but the mushroom specialist, the
(14:51):
mycologist, testified that you cannot buy death cat mushrooms
from supermarkets or Asian grocers.
OK. And this counteracts Erin
Patterson's testimony because inher testimony she says, well,
the mushrooms used in the Beef Wellington were either from an
Asian grocer or Woolworths because that's where I've
purchased mushrooms from. And if you don't know what a
(15:13):
beef Wellington is either, did I?
So I looked it up and it looked absolutely foul.
But anyway, it had beef and thenpastry and also like a mushroom
paste. So that's where the mushroom was
essentially. So she agreed, she, being Erin
Patterson, agreed that the meal had contained death cat
(15:34):
mushrooms. OK.
And I just want to go over something on my mind 'cause I
feel this comment was largely undervalued.
So if A she says that she agreesthe meal had death cat mushrooms
in it, and B she states she got mushrooms either from an Asian
grocer or Woolworths, and C the mushroom expert or the
mycologist says you can't buy death cat mushrooms from a
(15:57):
store. I don't know, probably because
they're lethal. Then I think we can comfortably
infer that D she foraged for these mushrooms and therefore E
cooked with these mushrooms. I don't know about everyone else
but I feel like that is very black and white track to follow.
That's when my mind goes with this.
She did say when she was on the stand that during around COVID
(16:20):
time. So I think that would be 2020.
Don't quote me. She started foraging for
mushrooms and cooking them up and eating them herself and
found, you know, pleasure in that and continued to do it.
So we can assume that if she didn't buy death cat mushrooms
from a shop, which she didn't because the mycologist said you
(16:40):
cannot buy them from a shop again because they're lethal,
then where'd she get them from? And the answer to that is from
the wild. So I felt like she dug herself a
grave there. I don't know about everyone
else. But anyway, during her time in
the hot seat, she testified thatin early 2023, she was foraging
(17:02):
mainly for field mushrooms, but also identified others like
slippery jacks and honey mushrooms when she was
testifying. She also said she got a large
inheritance after her grandmother died in 20.
Sorry, 2006. I was going to say 2026 and her
mother also in 2019. That allowed her and Simon, her
(17:23):
estranged husband, to purchase property as well as assist
Simon's siblings to purchase their family homes on the
proviso it was the interest freeloan.
So for the three siblings and their partners it was in the
order of around $400,000, all tobe paid back as they could.
It was understood that it would be regular repayment, but the
(17:45):
amount was of their choosing andthe timing was of their
choosing, she said. So after the pair separated in
2015, they split everything downthe middle, including properties
and debts. So that's information she's
given freely. That's fine.
To me that just says it was rather amicable, the split,
there's not much to be said there.
They split everything 5050, so it's not like she didn't have
(18:09):
the funds I suppose, and that using that as a motivator.
I guess if she was doing it overmoney, I'm unsure, but they had
everything split down the middle.
So the physical evidence that wehave OK is the Beef Wellington
itself. Before I said the mushroom
dehydrator, what's the relevance?
Well, that dehydrator she used to dehydrate mushrooms,
(18:33):
obviously, and that contained fingerprints.
So our DNA analyst and fingerprint expert had matched a
left finger index, left index, left middle and left ring
fingers, all fingerprint matchesto Erin Patterson.
On that dehydrator, we have mushroom samples.
(18:55):
Samples of the mushrooms consumed at the lunch were
analysed. They were taken from the bin.
The toxicologist testified that the earlier the sample was
taken, the better chance of detecting toxins.
So that's, you know, with most things.
But he noted that Erin Pattersonsamples were taken 51 hours
after the lunch and therefore did not detect death cat
(19:18):
mushrooms. So basically, he's just saying
how strong is this evidence? And he's saying, well, because
it was 51 hours later, the toxins, I guess, were off.
As far as the digital evidence goes, the Internet search
history is interesting. Evidence was showing that
Patterson visited a web page about death cat mushrooms more
(19:39):
than a year prior to the fatal lunch.
This indicates that she is awareof what a death cat mushroom is
at the the very least. I had no idea what a death cat
mushroom was until this trial tobe honest.
We have phone records that have call logs and messages from
numerous phones belonging to Erin Patterson.
(20:04):
So there was communications about medical appointments and
other interactions relevant to the case between Erin Patterson
and her. Former mother-in-law Gal
Patterson. There was Facebook messages that
were in the form of a screenshotof private Facebook messages
sent by Aaron Patterson venting about in laws referring to
estranged husband as a deadbeat and expressed strong negative
(20:27):
sentiments toward her extended family or his extended family.
I suppose the mushroom expert and the toxicologist, they
testified that identifying poisonous mushrooms can be
challenging and toxicity is often determined after
ingestion. So they provided context on the
complexities of mushroom identification and the risks
(20:48):
associated with that and the risks associated with foraging
for mushrooms. So we have the surviving guest
is Ian Wilkinson. He's referred to as Pastor Ian
Wilkinson. He's part of a church.
He testified that Erin Pattersonwas reluctant to allow guests to
help serve the food and was hesitant to let them into her
(21:09):
pantry, which I found odd. Doctor Tom May, who is a
mushroom expert and mycologist, he testified as an expert on the
identification of death cat mushrooms, and he's the one who
spoke about the challenges associated with distinguishing
them from the edible varieties. And then we have Detective
(21:30):
Leading Senior Constable StephenEppingstall.
I hope that's how you say it, Stephen.
Stephen, I think so, yeah. He's a police investigator.
He testified to giving evidence related to Internet searches for
death, cat mushrooms and other relevant information gathered
during the investigation. The leftover beef Wellington
from that lunch was actually retrieved by police on the
(21:53):
morning of July 31. So that was two days post the
meal. So Senior Constable Adrian
Martinez, I'm not even going to say it.
I can't say it. I'm so sorry.
We're just going to say that. Senior Comfortable testified the
Erin Patterson provided the passcode for the property's gate
and specific instructions on where the leftovers were
(22:14):
located. The leftovers consisted of beef,
pastry and mushroom paste, like we said earlier, so as much as
could be contained were taken from a bin at the home.
David Lovelock who is a forensicexpert who used DNA barcoding to
test for the presence of death death cat mushroom toxins.
(22:34):
He detected two different toxinsthat are associated with death
cat mushrooms which is a positive ID.
The food dehydrator situation isan interesting one that was
retrieved by police on the 4th of August, 2 days after it was
discarded. So on the 2nd of August, Aaron
was captured on CCTV disposing of the Black Sunbeam dehydrator
(22:59):
at a transfer station located near her home in Liangatha.
So, the footage actually shows her unloading the device from
her red car and placing it into an e-waste bin with a green shed
behind it. It was then recovered by police
and forensically tested. The experts confirmed traces of
death cat mushrooms. Erin Patterson actually
(23:23):
previously denied even owning A dehydrator, but she later
admitted to its use during her testimony.
And of course, the fingerprints were a dead giveaway.
And she also in terms of the cancer situation.
So she fabricated this illness and then ultimately admitted to
lying about having cancer to conceal her plans for alleged
(23:46):
weight loss surgery and a deception to elicit sympathy and
also logistical assistance from her relatives.
So she was trying to get them over there, I suppose.
I actually popped a question boxacross all of our social media
accounts for a 24 hour period for you guys to drop any
questions you had. There are a lot of the same
(24:07):
questions, so I just tried to narrow it down and then double
the amount of general statements.
So I tried to touch on, you know, those as best I can, those
that were appropriate enough to use.
You guys are funny. The main question was will she
get cross examined? So if she's been brought up by
her team, like I said earlier, she's then on the line and
(24:30):
available to prosecution for cross examination.
I think that would be absolutelywild, wildly insane to not cross
exam examine her. Basically, if you're offering a
person up, for lack of a better term, again, to speak on the
stand, then yes, they can get cross examined.
Which is why the media were harping on about whether or not
she's actually going to get up on the stand.
(24:51):
But basically because if her team were willing to put her on
the stand, they know she's more than likely to sit through a
cross exam. I hope this answers your
question. I think, yeah, we'll, we'll be
seeing her in cross examination.I can't wait for that.
I'm disappointed that it's not actually live streamed and we're
going by like transcripts and recaps.
But anyway, another question that I had like in the 20s.
(25:18):
Yeah 24 24 of this question whenis she releasing her cookbook?
You guys are hilarious. Hopefully never.
However, that AI image of her circling around with the chef's
hat structure to look like a cookbook it that gave me a good
laugh. So if you haven't seen that,
look that one up. And then there was basically a
lot of statements to say she's as guilty as and it's not much
(25:42):
of a question, question obviously.
But I also feel the same way. And I'm glad that there's others
out there who feel the same way because I've heard a few people
be like, oh, what if, you know, I think she might be not guilty,
which sort of stresses me out a little bit.
But straight into my opinion, And my opinion is that I have
not really followed along since it happened, OK.
(26:05):
And purely because I made my mind up on this case and how I
felt about it pretty early on, so learning a bit more in the
last few weeks and the specific details and other bits and
pieces basically only affirm my initial thoughts.
As soon as she disposed of the dehydrator on the 2nd of August
and they collected it on the fourth, I was just like uh huh.
(26:28):
Like, OK, you're done for. Like, why you're doing that, you
know, attempt to conceal. But the first thing that came to
my head, I'm honestly confused about the big deal they're
making about her issues with thebirth of her son and her weight
gain and things like that. I actually can't understand how
that even remotely ties to the lunch unless they're just trying
to, you know, paint a picture ofwho she is and her experiences.
(26:51):
I'm just not sure, but there's obviously a method into the
madness there. The lawyers might have something
else that they want to talk about.
But she also admitted to lying about having cancer, guys.
So if that doesn't tell you whatyou need to know about her
character, then I am not sure what else is more of a dead
giveaway than that. I don't think there's much to
(27:11):
say about the relationship breakdown.
There's evidence and it's obvious that there were issues
between her and his parents. She admits in those messages
that she just wants to be done with them.
I do believe that she coerced them over for that meal, whether
that be by saying she had canceror not.
I think she's as guilty as sin. And I think if you're going to
admit to foraging for mushrooms,which is not typical, I don't
(27:35):
think I know anyone who does that.
And I've lived in two different States and worked
internationally and I cannot confirm a single person I know
who who does that. But if you're going to admit to
doing that for three years priorand having an interest in them
for quite some time, that would make you more inclined, one
would assume than the average non mushroom loving Joe that
(27:56):
death cat mushrooms exist. OK.
And that there's a risk in foraging for that reason.
Like I said, I had no idea that that death cat mushroom was even
a thing. So she's just so many things
like that like that that does her in as far as I am looking.
But anyway that the experts say you can't just buy them off the
(28:17):
shelf for a start. So she foraged for them and
that's obviously how they got inthere.
And it's just black and white tome.
So I'm just mind blown. If anybody thinks otherwise.
The Internet searching history about death cat mushrooms, aside
from rendering her guilty, it shows that she had knowledge
that these mushrooms at the veryleast exist.
(28:37):
So again, not something that theaverage person would have
knowledge of the existence of them and that they could
literally kill someone. There's some complex talk about
her phone pinging in the areas not far from where.
So the mycologist, the mushroom expert, Doctor Tom May, he
actually reported seeing death cat mushrooms about two months
(28:59):
before the lethal lunch in an area not too far from where she
lives. And there's complex talks about
her phone pinging in the areas not far from where he reported
seeing these mushrooms. So I don't know if they're going
to harp on that a bit more. I know that they did an
extensive log search of her phone pinging.
(29:24):
Whether that's because of that exact statement or something
else, I don't know. But I think that's also a bit of
a giveaway. But there's just such a
substantial amount of evidence against her that I would be
shocked if she got let off on this, to be honest.
And the fact that we have Ian Wilkinson as a survivor of this
(29:46):
and he can say that she wasn't happy with us handling the food
and helping ourselves and thingslike that.
Well, I haven't even gone into the plate situation, but I'm
going to give it a couple more days, if not a week, see how
it's going. We can talk about the plates.
I know there was different coloured plates and things like
that. And I know they spoke to her
children. We'll go into that and whatever
(30:07):
other updates come along. So that's all for now.
I will add a bit more detail into the next one.
If there's any other questions, just yell at me, send me an
e-mail, message me on any socialaccounts.
I'll put more question boxes up as they come.
And yeah, that's all for today. So I hope you have enjoyed it,
(30:31):
and I hope you have either learned a thing or two or, you
know, discovered something aboutmushrooms.
Don't forage for them. That's my advice.
But yeah, have a beautiful day. Thank you so much for joining me
this episode. I hope you have enjoyed it here.
If so, you can subscribe to stayup to date on new episodes or
(30:51):
you can find us both on Instagram and Facebook and now
TikTok. Please feel free to jump on our
Facebook group to join in on thecase discussions.
You can find the link to our group in our podcast notes.
As always, stay curious, stay informed, and until next time,
trust your instincts and keep seeking the truth.
Welcome to Exhuming the Truth, the podcast where we delve into
the mysterious worlds of cold cases, missing persons, true
crime, and the fascinating science that is forensics.
I'm forensic scientist and criminologist Asha Walther, and
I am so thrilled to have you with me on this journey as we
dance in the shadows of the world of crime, shining a light
(00:38):
on scientific discovery while becoming another voice for those
who need it most. So grab a drink and get
comfortable while we jump into this episode together.
As always, I would like to extend a content and trigger
warning. This podcast is recommended for
persons over the age of 18 and contains explicit content not
suitable for minors. We will be covering sensitive
(01:00):
content that ranges from sexual assault, physical, mental,
social and emotional abuse, suicide, homicide, murder,
attempted murder, and other violent crimes including crimes
involving weapons and drugs. This often extends to drug
misuse and other harmful and illegal activity.
If you find any content to be distressing, I have listed a
(01:23):
number of resources that may be able to help you in the podcast
notes. I would also like to remind our
listeners that all victims and all perpetrators are someone's
loved 1. So I ask that any discussion in
our group or on our social accounts remain respectful of
that at all times. And by listening today, you
acknowledge that all persons of interest remain innocent until
(01:44):
proven otherwise. Hello ET gang.
It is midday. I am not recording at night
time. I'm recording in the middle of
the day. And that is super bizarre for me
because I don't usually find time during the day for some
reason. It's like so hectic during the
day. I'm trying to organise
everything for the kids and I just can't really concentrate
(02:08):
until night time. But here we are.
So for housekeeping TikTok, let's talk about TikTok.
I can use TikTok if I want to watch something.
Let's be clear on that. I don't have like, I'm not an
avid TikTok user and I'm just going to say like, I am on the
(02:29):
bad side of 30, you know what I'm saying?
So it like takes a little while for me to Scroll down and find
the 90s when I'm signing up to new things online, if you know
what I'm saying. So I think it kind of just hits
you or like a ton of bricks. You are not 18 anymore, Hun.
And things get confusing. So it's taking me a moment to
(02:51):
warm up to TikTok. Although I am good with
technology, it's awfully chaoticover there.
But I am trying to post as much as I can on there about what
cases and what's coming up and things like that.
So just bear with me, OK? This is also a bit of a test
run. I'm hoping there's not too much
like Reverb because I'm in the lounge room and my lounge room
(03:13):
is quite big and it tends to echo, so hopefully that doesn't
happen so I'll apologize in advance.
So anyway, tick tock, that's what's happening.
So you can find us on there under the same name, assuming
the truth and what else is happening.
My mom's moving in. I am so excited.
I know she's probably dreading it but she's moving in for a few
(03:34):
months which is so exciting. I love my mum so much, she's my
best friend ever and I annoy herso much and I call her every day
and just like what else could she be doing except talking to
me, you know? I am the youngest child,
probably the most annoying one, but I rely on her for a lot.
And she's also really great for body doubling.
(03:56):
Fellow neuro spicy people know what I'm saying.
Like when you're trying to do something and like you just
can't get it done unless someone's sitting there with
you. Yeah, I always call her and I'm
like, can you come over so I canclean my cupboard?
And she thinks, why did I come here?
But now she can't think anythingbecause she's going to be living
in my spare room. And I'm so excited that yeah,
that's just for a few months. So that's what's happening.
(04:18):
And also randomly I got these new socks, nothing special.
They're not, you know, they're not ankle socks, they're not
sockets, they're normal socks. And they're just white with a
little bit of black on them. And it's taken me a little
while, OK, they came in a pack of three and this is just the
(04:41):
most stupid story of all time. But they have like 1 sock has an
L and one has an R, right? So it's like, this is for your
left foot and this is for your right.
And I was wearing them the otherday and I was like to my
partner, hey, like, do you like my new socks?
And he's like, what do you mean?Like they're just Wyatt socks?
And I was like, yeah, that they have an Allen art, so I know
(05:03):
which one goes on which foot. And then it never crossed my
mind and until he said he's like, but they're socks, so like
they can go on either foot. So.
Yeah, whoever was in charge of the marketing campaign on those
socks deserves a raise because it worked on me.
But yeah, stupid, stupid random story.
(05:25):
But anyway, that's what's happening.
So today. Oh, actually, it's also winter.
It's June. Happy June.
It's officially winter. I hate winter, but I do love it
for the fact that the farmers get a bit of rain and also hay,
obviously, because I'm a horsey girl.
(05:45):
But I have been chipping away back here on a few business
things. We'll chat about them another
time. I think maybe you do like a
business update episode so that I don't bore everybody.
But as you know, the podcast is on YouTube just as audio right
now. I've got to work out videoing
and all that sort of stuff, but the only reason I'm mentioning
this, this is kind of funny because I got a comment right on
(06:08):
one of the episodes. I don't recall the name of the
person who made the comment, butI mean it's one single comment
so it won't be hard to find. But anyway, the person said that
the introduction to my episodes is way too long and I wanted to
say this. I actually completely agree and
I don't want to be boring, but Ihave to do like a content and
(06:32):
trigger warning. It's a legal requirement.
I have to do it in each episode because obviously it's the right
thing to do for one, and it's a legal reason for two and three,
like everybody's safety and well-being is like the top of my
list. So with that being said, like, I
feel your pain, whoever that was, and my only advice is if
you are not new here and you're sick of listening to the content
(06:54):
warning and my introduction and all that, you can always just
skip ahead a little and save yourself the ball.
But yeah, that, that was amusing.
I got an e-mail about that, but that's my only practical
solution to that problem. Today we are doing a trial recap
and a bit of an update on a highly requested story, which is
(07:17):
the mushroom murders or the mushroom chef or whatever you
shall refer to it as Erin Patterson, who invited her
family members. Well her ex in laws over for
lunch and they died bar one person.
So that's what we're going to gointo.
I actually had written up like Iwas so happy with all of the
(07:38):
stuff and the details I wrote down for this case and then my
Mac didn't update and didn't save my most recent two
documents that I had not yet saved and that was one of them
so I had to redo it. So I feel like I'm missing
something that I don't know whatyet, but hopefully I'm not.
If I am, I apologize but I have done my best to redo.
(07:59):
So let's get into it and stop boring everybody with our
introductions. So the case of Erin Patterson,
it's a high profile legal proceeding in Victoria as we
speak, which involves allegations of intentional
poisoning. Excuse me, intentional.
I nearly said international. It's not international.
(08:20):
It is definitely local intentional poisoning through a
meal containing death cap mushrooms.
If she is convicted you guys, she will face life imprisonment
for the murder charges and then up to 25 years for the attempted
murder charge, which is obviously against the gentleman
who survived. But let's have a little bit of
(08:40):
background, shall we? In the quiet little town of
Leigh Ingatha in Victoria, a family lunch turned fatal on
July the 29th 2023. Aaron Patterson, the accused who
is a 50 year old mother, hosted a lunch that led to the deaths
of her former in laws Don and GAIL Patterson, both aged 70, as
well as Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson, aged 66.
(09:04):
Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson was the sole survivor after a
prolonged hospital stay and a liver transplant which saved his
life. The dishing question you ask?
Well, that's your beef Wellington allegedly containing
lethal death cap mushrooms. Sounds gross but OK, let's
analyse now. Erin Patterson stands trial
(09:26):
facing 3 counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.
This case, unsurprisingly, has captivated the nation, raising
questions about intent, deception and the deadly
potential of foraged foods. Let me take you to the court,
the Supreme Court of Victoria. It's held at the Latrobe Valley
Law Courts in Morwell. And can I tell you, it's chaos,
(09:49):
people trying to get in that courtroom.
The trial commenced on the 29th of April with Justice
Christopher William Beal as the presiding judge.
The prosecution is led by Crown Prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC,
and the defense is represented by Colin Mandy, SC.
So SC is just an abbreviation for senior counsel if you were
(10:09):
wondering. So the jury, so 15 jurors were
selected and started to begin with 10 men, five women, as it's
understood one had to leave and was dismissed from the court for
allegedly potentially discussingthe case with family and
friends. So if you didn't know, in
Victoria, OK, they have a systemwhere all evidence and closing
(10:31):
arguments and all of that is presented.
And then after that the court randomly selects 2 jurors to get
rid of, for lack of a better term, so that they always
ultimately have 12 jurors deliberating on the case.
It's like a safety net or the extras.
Yeah, the extra 2 are a safety net per SE in case anything else
(10:52):
goes wrong and they lose any other jurors, like the first
issue of discussion discussing outside the courtroom or
anything like that. So they always want to have that
final number at the end. It really just safeguards the
number of jurors deciding and makes it even.
I know this is a thing in Victoria.
I'm unsure about other states, so you'll have to look that one
up. But in black and white we have
(11:14):
the state, OK, We're also referred to as the Crown.
So when I'm saying the Crown, itjust means the state and they're
saying that this was an intentional murder.
And then we have Aaron Pattersonas the defence saying, and I
quote, it was a horrible accident.
OK, So that's the argument, plain and simple, clear as day.
So testifying this courtroom, wehave a couple of experts, We
(11:36):
have Adna analyst, we have mycologist, which is a fancy
name for a mushroom specialist. Yes, I said it, a mushroom
specialist. We have a toxicologist and so
forth. So in terms of evidence, the
main pieces of evidence in question OK are the food
dehydrator, digital traces, which is all mobile phone usage
(11:58):
data, search engine information,etcetera.
And then we also have other message exchanges and
interactions on file which are basically being used to
highlight the hostile family situation between Erin Patterson
and her ex in laws. So like I said, the trial
commenced in the Supreme Court where Patterson pleads not
guilty to all three counts of murder and not guilty to the one
(12:21):
count of attempted murder. She asserts that the poison was
a tragic accident. She admits that the lunch
contained death cat mushrooms, however, claims she did not know
that they were poisonous. So that in itself confuses me a
tad. But anyway, so when we're
chatting at the defence, OK, we are going to talk about Erin
Patterson first and foremost, OK, Because she testified and
(12:43):
this was coming up, it's been a few weeks and everyone's like,
is she going to testify? And why are people asking that?
And obviously, it's a case against her.
So we would assume she would talk.
But The thing is, the defense donot have to call her as a
witness. We know now this deep into the
case that she has been called asa witness.
But the reason why they may not call her as a witness is they
(13:05):
might think she's a weak witnessand they might also be hesitant
to put her up there. Basically, if she's up there and
her own team's called her up there, then she's a free agent
for the other side. So prosecution are allowed to
come in and cross examine her and they might have been worried
about that. Turns out they're probably not
because they've chucked her up there anyway.
So on the stand she gets up, shegoes into her own personal
(13:29):
issues. OK, her struggles with self
esteem, weight gain, spiritual changes, a difficult childbirth,
as well as her growing estrangement from the Patterson
family. She expressed her regret over
private Facebook messages where she vented frustrations about
her in laws. She went on to say that the
family dynamics are strained, including issues about child
(13:49):
support and several attempts to reconcile with her estranged
husband Simon. This is of course all Simon's
family, might I add. She denied she initially it said
that she denied faking a cancer diagnosis, but then it said she
admitted faking a cancer diagnosis.
So I think ultimately she did admit that she faked a cancer
(14:09):
diagnosis as a pretense for the lunch, I guess.
So she's been like, oh, I've been diagnosed with cancer.
Can you come over for lunch? Although she cited significant
health anxieties stemming from family history and her immense
distrust in the medical system, I'm really unsure at this point
in time. As it stands, I am actually
(14:30):
unsure how all of this background that she's giving,
unless she's just giving a general background to her life,
which she is. But I'm unsure how her
unhappiness with the medical system relates to the actual
story itself. I don't know if they're going to
go somewhere with that, but the mushroom specialist, the
(14:51):
mycologist, testified that you cannot buy death cat mushrooms
from supermarkets or Asian grocers.
OK. And this counteracts Erin
Patterson's testimony because inher testimony she says, well,
the mushrooms used in the Beef Wellington were either from an
Asian grocer or Woolworths because that's where I've
purchased mushrooms from. And if you don't know what a
(15:13):
beef Wellington is either, did I?
So I looked it up and it looked absolutely foul.
But anyway, it had beef and thenpastry and also like a mushroom
paste. So that's where the mushroom was
essentially. So she agreed, she, being Erin
Patterson, agreed that the meal had contained death cat
(15:34):
mushrooms. OK.
And I just want to go over something on my mind 'cause I
feel this comment was largely undervalued.
So if A she says that she agreesthe meal had death cat mushrooms
in it, and B she states she got mushrooms either from an Asian
grocer or Woolworths, and C the mushroom expert or the
mycologist says you can't buy death cat mushrooms from a
(15:57):
store. I don't know, probably because
they're lethal. Then I think we can comfortably
infer that D she foraged for these mushrooms and therefore E
cooked with these mushrooms. I don't know about everyone else
but I feel like that is very black and white track to follow.
That's when my mind goes with this.
She did say when she was on the stand that during around COVID
(16:20):
time. So I think that would be 2020.
Don't quote me. She started foraging for
mushrooms and cooking them up and eating them herself and
found, you know, pleasure in that and continued to do it.
So we can assume that if she didn't buy death cat mushrooms
from a shop, which she didn't because the mycologist said you
(16:40):
cannot buy them from a shop again because they're lethal,
then where'd she get them from? And the answer to that is from
the wild. So I felt like she dug herself a
grave there. I don't know about everyone
else. But anyway, during her time in
the hot seat, she testified thatin early 2023, she was foraging
(17:02):
mainly for field mushrooms, but also identified others like
slippery jacks and honey mushrooms when she was
testifying. She also said she got a large
inheritance after her grandmother died in 20.
Sorry, 2006. I was going to say 2026 and her
mother also in 2019. That allowed her and Simon, her
(17:23):
estranged husband, to purchase property as well as assist
Simon's siblings to purchase their family homes on the
proviso it was the interest freeloan.
So for the three siblings and their partners it was in the
order of around $400,000, all tobe paid back as they could.
It was understood that it would be regular repayment, but the
(17:45):
amount was of their choosing andthe timing was of their
choosing, she said. So after the pair separated in
2015, they split everything downthe middle, including properties
and debts. So that's information she's
given freely. That's fine.
To me that just says it was rather amicable, the split,
there's not much to be said there.
They split everything 5050, so it's not like she didn't have
(18:09):
the funds I suppose, and that using that as a motivator.
I guess if she was doing it overmoney, I'm unsure, but they had
everything split down the middle.
So the physical evidence that wehave OK is the Beef Wellington
itself. Before I said the mushroom
dehydrator, what's the relevance?
Well, that dehydrator she used to dehydrate mushrooms,
(18:33):
obviously, and that contained fingerprints.
So our DNA analyst and fingerprint expert had matched a
left finger index, left index, left middle and left ring
fingers, all fingerprint matchesto Erin Patterson.
On that dehydrator, we have mushroom samples.
(18:55):
Samples of the mushrooms consumed at the lunch were
analysed. They were taken from the bin.
The toxicologist testified that the earlier the sample was
taken, the better chance of detecting toxins.
So that's, you know, with most things.
But he noted that Erin Pattersonsamples were taken 51 hours
after the lunch and therefore did not detect death cat
(19:18):
mushrooms. So basically, he's just saying
how strong is this evidence? And he's saying, well, because
it was 51 hours later, the toxins, I guess, were off.
As far as the digital evidence goes, the Internet search
history is interesting. Evidence was showing that
Patterson visited a web page about death cat mushrooms more
(19:39):
than a year prior to the fatal lunch.
This indicates that she is awareof what a death cat mushroom is
at the the very least. I had no idea what a death cat
mushroom was until this trial tobe honest.
We have phone records that have call logs and messages from
numerous phones belonging to Erin Patterson.
(20:04):
So there was communications about medical appointments and
other interactions relevant to the case between Erin Patterson
and her. Former mother-in-law Gal
Patterson. There was Facebook messages that
were in the form of a screenshotof private Facebook messages
sent by Aaron Patterson venting about in laws referring to
estranged husband as a deadbeat and expressed strong negative
(20:27):
sentiments toward her extended family or his extended family.
I suppose the mushroom expert and the toxicologist, they
testified that identifying poisonous mushrooms can be
challenging and toxicity is often determined after
ingestion. So they provided context on the
complexities of mushroom identification and the risks
(20:48):
associated with that and the risks associated with foraging
for mushrooms. So we have the surviving guest
is Ian Wilkinson. He's referred to as Pastor Ian
Wilkinson. He's part of a church.
He testified that Erin Pattersonwas reluctant to allow guests to
help serve the food and was hesitant to let them into her
(21:09):
pantry, which I found odd. Doctor Tom May, who is a
mushroom expert and mycologist, he testified as an expert on the
identification of death cat mushrooms, and he's the one who
spoke about the challenges associated with distinguishing
them from the edible varieties. And then we have Detective
(21:30):
Leading Senior Constable StephenEppingstall.
I hope that's how you say it, Stephen.
Stephen, I think so, yeah. He's a police investigator.
He testified to giving evidence related to Internet searches for
death, cat mushrooms and other relevant information gathered
during the investigation. The leftover beef Wellington
from that lunch was actually retrieved by police on the
(21:53):
morning of July 31. So that was two days post the
meal. So Senior Constable Adrian
Martinez, I'm not even going to say it.
I can't say it. I'm so sorry.
We're just going to say that. Senior Comfortable testified the
Erin Patterson provided the passcode for the property's gate
and specific instructions on where the leftovers were
(22:14):
located. The leftovers consisted of beef,
pastry and mushroom paste, like we said earlier, so as much as
could be contained were taken from a bin at the home.
David Lovelock who is a forensicexpert who used DNA barcoding to
test for the presence of death death cat mushroom toxins.
(22:34):
He detected two different toxinsthat are associated with death
cat mushrooms which is a positive ID.
The food dehydrator situation isan interesting one that was
retrieved by police on the 4th of August, 2 days after it was
discarded. So on the 2nd of August, Aaron
was captured on CCTV disposing of the Black Sunbeam dehydrator
(22:59):
at a transfer station located near her home in Liangatha.
So, the footage actually shows her unloading the device from
her red car and placing it into an e-waste bin with a green shed
behind it. It was then recovered by police
and forensically tested. The experts confirmed traces of
death cat mushrooms. Erin Patterson actually
(23:23):
previously denied even owning A dehydrator, but she later
admitted to its use during her testimony.
And of course, the fingerprints were a dead giveaway.
And she also in terms of the cancer situation.
So she fabricated this illness and then ultimately admitted to
lying about having cancer to conceal her plans for alleged
(23:46):
weight loss surgery and a deception to elicit sympathy and
also logistical assistance from her relatives.
So she was trying to get them over there, I suppose.
I actually popped a question boxacross all of our social media
accounts for a 24 hour period for you guys to drop any
questions you had. There are a lot of the same
(24:07):
questions, so I just tried to narrow it down and then double
the amount of general statements.
So I tried to touch on, you know, those as best I can, those
that were appropriate enough to use.
You guys are funny. The main question was will she
get cross examined? So if she's been brought up by
her team, like I said earlier, she's then on the line and
(24:30):
available to prosecution for cross examination.
I think that would be absolutelywild, wildly insane to not cross
exam examine her. Basically, if you're offering a
person up, for lack of a better term, again, to speak on the
stand, then yes, they can get cross examined.
Which is why the media were harping on about whether or not
she's actually going to get up on the stand.
(24:51):
But basically because if her team were willing to put her on
the stand, they know she's more than likely to sit through a
cross exam. I hope this answers your
question. I think, yeah, we'll, we'll be
seeing her in cross examination.I can't wait for that.
I'm disappointed that it's not actually live streamed and we're
going by like transcripts and recaps.
But anyway, another question that I had like in the 20s.
(25:18):
Yeah 24 24 of this question whenis she releasing her cookbook?
You guys are hilarious. Hopefully never.
However, that AI image of her circling around with the chef's
hat structure to look like a cookbook it that gave me a good
laugh. So if you haven't seen that,
look that one up. And then there was basically a
lot of statements to say she's as guilty as and it's not much
(25:42):
of a question, question obviously.
But I also feel the same way. And I'm glad that there's others
out there who feel the same way because I've heard a few people
be like, oh, what if, you know, I think she might be not guilty,
which sort of stresses me out a little bit.
But straight into my opinion, And my opinion is that I have
not really followed along since it happened, OK.
(26:05):
And purely because I made my mind up on this case and how I
felt about it pretty early on, so learning a bit more in the
last few weeks and the specific details and other bits and
pieces basically only affirm my initial thoughts.
As soon as she disposed of the dehydrator on the 2nd of August
and they collected it on the fourth, I was just like uh huh.
(26:28):
Like, OK, you're done for. Like, why you're doing that, you
know, attempt to conceal. But the first thing that came to
my head, I'm honestly confused about the big deal they're
making about her issues with thebirth of her son and her weight
gain and things like that. I actually can't understand how
that even remotely ties to the lunch unless they're just trying
to, you know, paint a picture ofwho she is and her experiences.
(26:51):
I'm just not sure, but there's obviously a method into the
madness there. The lawyers might have something
else that they want to talk about.
But she also admitted to lying about having cancer, guys.
So if that doesn't tell you whatyou need to know about her
character, then I am not sure what else is more of a dead
giveaway than that. I don't think there's much to
(27:11):
say about the relationship breakdown.
There's evidence and it's obvious that there were issues
between her and his parents. She admits in those messages
that she just wants to be done with them.
I do believe that she coerced them over for that meal, whether
that be by saying she had canceror not.
I think she's as guilty as sin. And I think if you're going to
admit to foraging for mushrooms,which is not typical, I don't
(27:35):
think I know anyone who does that.
And I've lived in two different States and worked
internationally and I cannot confirm a single person I know
who who does that. But if you're going to admit to
doing that for three years priorand having an interest in them
for quite some time, that would make you more inclined, one
would assume than the average non mushroom loving Joe that
(27:56):
death cat mushrooms exist. OK.
And that there's a risk in foraging for that reason.
Like I said, I had no idea that that death cat mushroom was even
a thing. So she's just so many things
like that like that that does her in as far as I am looking.
But anyway that the experts say you can't just buy them off the
(28:17):
shelf for a start. So she foraged for them and
that's obviously how they got inthere.
And it's just black and white tome.
So I'm just mind blown. If anybody thinks otherwise.
The Internet searching history about death cat mushrooms, aside
from rendering her guilty, it shows that she had knowledge
that these mushrooms at the veryleast exist.
(28:37):
So again, not something that theaverage person would have
knowledge of the existence of them and that they could
literally kill someone. There's some complex talk about
her phone pinging in the areas not far from where.
So the mycologist, the mushroom expert, Doctor Tom May, he
actually reported seeing death cat mushrooms about two months
(28:59):
before the lethal lunch in an area not too far from where she
lives. And there's complex talks about
her phone pinging in the areas not far from where he reported
seeing these mushrooms. So I don't know if they're going
to harp on that a bit more. I know that they did an
extensive log search of her phone pinging.
(29:24):
Whether that's because of that exact statement or something
else, I don't know. But I think that's also a bit of
a giveaway. But there's just such a
substantial amount of evidence against her that I would be
shocked if she got let off on this, to be honest.
And the fact that we have Ian Wilkinson as a survivor of this
(29:46):
and he can say that she wasn't happy with us handling the food
and helping ourselves and thingslike that.
Well, I haven't even gone into the plate situation, but I'm
going to give it a couple more days, if not a week, see how
it's going. We can talk about the plates.
I know there was different coloured plates and things like
that. And I know they spoke to her
children. We'll go into that and whatever
(30:07):
other updates come along. So that's all for now.
I will add a bit more detail into the next one.
If there's any other questions, just yell at me, send me an
e-mail, message me on any socialaccounts.
I'll put more question boxes up as they come.
And yeah, that's all for today. So I hope you have enjoyed it,
(30:31):
and I hope you have either learned a thing or two or, you
know, discovered something aboutmushrooms.
Don't forage for them. That's my advice.
But yeah, have a beautiful day. Thank you so much for joining me
this episode. I hope you have enjoyed it here.
If so, you can subscribe to stayup to date on new episodes or
(30:51):
you can find us both on Instagram and Facebook and now
TikTok. Please feel free to jump on our
Facebook group to join in on thecase discussions.
You can find the link to our group in our podcast notes.
As always, stay curious, stay informed, and until next time,
trust your instincts and keep seeking the truth.
Popular Podcasts
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.
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.