BONUS: Mushrooms, Motive and Murder: The Erin Patterson Case

The mushroom murder trial captured the attention of the whole world. Erin Patterson, a seemingly ordinary mother from a small country town, foraged for death cap mushrooms before serving a laced beef Wellington to her relatives. Heather Wilkinson alongside Don and Gail Patterson were killed by the deadly lunch. Miraculously, Ian Wilkinson survived. 

From the mismatched plates and crocodile tears to the myriad of lies and months of planning, criminologist Xanthé Mallett breaks down every detail of the mushroom murder case.

Listen to Xanthé Mallett’s podcast, co-hosted with Tim Watson-Munro, Motive & Method, wherever you get your podcasts.

 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Detective see aside of life. The average person is never
exposed her I spent thirty four years as a cop.
For twenty five of those years, I was catching killers.
That's what I did for a living. I was a
homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.

(00:23):
The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some
of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Join me now as I take you into this world. Today,

(00:46):
we have a bonus episode for you. We're going to
talk about the Mushroom murder case. This is a case
that has captured the attention of the whole world. A
supposedly average middle aged lady called Aaron Patterson invited her
former husband parents, Gail and Donald Patterson, and Gail's sister
Heather and her husband, Iern Wilkinson over for lunch. Three

(01:07):
of those guests, Gail, Donald, and Heather died. Ian Wilkinson
was the only victim who survived after being served a
fatal mushroom lunch. Now this was not an accident. This
was cold blooded murder, as the Victorian Supreme Court ruled
this week when Aaron was convicted of murdering her guests
and the attempted murder of Iran Wilkinson, we thought we

(01:29):
might have a closer look at this case. So I've
invited my good friend and a previous guest on I
Catch Killers, criminologist Xanti Mallett, who has been following this
case closely, to talk all about the case. When they
talk about the crime, what happened, how the investigation played out,
the facts that came out in the trial, and we're

(01:49):
going to try to get an understanding of who Aaron
Patterson is and why she would commit such a horrendous crime.
But before we do, when discussing cases like this, we
need to understand that three innocent people had their lives
taken and their loved ones will carry this for the
rest of their lives. Murder has a ripple effect. It
doesn't just impact on those who lost their lives, but

(02:11):
also those who love them. I think it's important with
all the fascination about this case, when we talk about it,
we should not lose sight of the tragedy of what
has happened here. Zanthon Mallett, Welcome to our Catch Killers. Hello,
thanks for coming on. I know you're a busy person.

Speaker 2 (02:31):
Well been a busy week, it has, but always a pleasure.

Speaker 1 (02:34):
Well, last time we caught up, I think we went
out for a night which turned into it started off
as dinner and then ended into drinks after dinner, and
I blamed Tim Watson Monroe.

Speaker 2 (02:49):
I always blamed him for everything. He's a troublemaker, that man.

Speaker 1 (02:52):
He's a bad human being. And it was you, me,
Duncan McNabb and we were the innocent ones.

Speaker 2 (02:58):
And Tim Duncan mcm is also a bad influence.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
Encourage us to have a drink. But it was good
fun as usual, So yeah, thanks for coming on. I've
talked about upfront before you came on, about the impact
of murder, and yeah, this case and that's captured so
many people's attention. But what sometimes lost on this is
that three lives have been lost and all the people

(03:22):
around them, how many lives have been impacted upon. But
before we go on, I do owe you an apology
because on the Kathleen Folbeck.

Speaker 2 (03:32):
Matter, Oh oh yeah.

Speaker 1 (03:34):
Here it comes. I said apology. I didn't say I
was wrong. Say softly so people aren't listening. But look,
that was another horrendous situation. But you always maintained and
we had some very debate debates. That's a nice way
of putting it about the guilt or innocence, and you
always maintain that she should be acquitted by the court

(03:55):
based on the evidence. And I've got to say, you
were proven to be right. So yeah, so did you.

Speaker 2 (04:01):
Say you were going to apologize?

Speaker 1 (04:03):
Did you say that was an apology?

Speaker 2 (04:05):
So? Was it? Okay?

Speaker 1 (04:05):
All right?

Speaker 2 (04:06):
Loosely? All right, Okay, I accept that you were wrong.

Speaker 1 (04:09):
I I can't say the word. But now it was
an interesting take on it. And that's the high stakes
of the court system and investigating, yes, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (04:21):
Yeah, we're kind of making light of that because we
did have that bet, and I told you owed me
a whole creative beer when I was found to be correct,
and so I'll hold you to that. But at the
end of the day, that's another woman's life who's been
irrevocably changed. You know, she lost twenty years of her
life as a result of her error, and so, you know,
we kind of joked about it, but it's actually really

(04:42):
deadly serious when things go wrong with the court system.

Speaker 1 (04:44):
Yeah, most definitely. Now, for you've been on the guests
being on as a guest previously on I Catch Killers.
But for people that don't know you, I describe you
as a forensic anthropologist, criminologist, academic television presenter, successful author
and host of Motive and Method podcast, and someone who

(05:05):
has a deep understanding and fascination and expertise in all
things crime. Have I missed anything?

Speaker 2 (05:11):
I don't think so. I think I do all of
those things. I'm not sure I do all of those
things really well, but okay, yes, yeah, I do double
in all of those Yeah.

Speaker 1 (05:19):
Yeah. Because you have been involved in crime in various
various ways, looking at crime and dissecting crime for a
long time. So I thought I wanted to talk about
the ushroom murder case because it's captured the fascination of
so many people, not just in this country, it looks
like worldwide. Yep.

Speaker 2 (05:37):
Yeah, I've done did a podcast the UK, I've done
interviews the UK, France, other places in Europe I can't
even remember. Yes, it's everywhere.

Speaker 1 (05:45):
Yeah, what what is it about this case that's fascinated people?
What's your thoughts on that?

Speaker 2 (05:51):
I think there are a number of things. I think. Firstly,
it's Aaron Patterson itself. Like you probably remember those first interviews.
You look at Aaron Patterson, and she's so normal, right,
She's so average. You know, she's a fifty year old woman.
She could be anyone you pass in the shops. You're
not going to look twice at her, because she's just
so pedestrian, so average. And I think that kind of

(06:14):
including where it happened. It happened in this really cute
little town that nobody actually heard of either. That's you
in this wine country and it's known for the cheese
and the beauty. And then you have these three deaths,
these three awful deaths. You know, we're not these I
think a poison is a particularly brutal and cruel way
to kill someone because it takes so long, you're talking

(06:36):
five days, six days. It's horrendous. And so you look
at the situation and you look at the accused and
what happened, and the two things just don't go together,
you go, how could that woman be responsible for this?
And nobody have any idea that there was anything going
on in the background.

Speaker 1 (06:54):
Yeah, all I have just noticed, like so many people
have an opinion on that right from right from the start.
Do you think she's done it? And there seems to
be a divided There was divided opinion. That wasn't one
way or the other. People were fascinated by it.

Speaker 2 (07:10):
Yeah, Well it all came down to intent, didn't it?
You know, did she do it on purpose? Clearly she
made the meal that led to the deaths, and it
hinged on intent. And how do you actually prove intent?
That was always what was going to be the challenge
for the crown because the only person who knows why
she did what she did is Aaron Patterson. So unless
you can climb inside her head, you can't prove it.

(07:31):
So I think that was people just find it inexplicable.
Why would she do it? And if you haven't got
a good reason, it's like, well she's got no reason
for doing it, so therefore did it happen?

Speaker 1 (07:41):
Yeah? No motive? And was it tragedy?

Speaker 2 (07:43):
Always a problem?

Speaker 1 (07:44):
Isn't it a tragic? Excellent? Just break it down and
describe the crime to people, just a summary summary of
what happened if you could, Yes.

Speaker 2 (07:54):
Sure so. Almost exactly two years ago, Aaron Patterson invited
her family, which included her estranged husband they're not divorced,
Simon estranged husband, his parents, and his aunt and uncle
for a family lunch. She claimed to have cancer and
she wanted to get the whole family together as this

(08:15):
meal because she was supposedly deeply unwell. So Simon didn't go.
He said he felt uncomfortable, so he elected not to
go to that lunch, but the other four did. She
cooked that beef Wellington that now fame was beef Wellington,
and subsequently three of the four guests died and Ian
Wilkinson was very lucky to survive. I think he was

(08:38):
in hospital for around seven weeks and eventually when he
came out of his coma after a few days, woke
to find that his wife was deceased, which must have
been heartbreaking. And as the investigation unfolded, there were questions
as to what was in the lunch. You know, it
appeared to be the mushrooms. Originally Aaron Patterson claimed that
they'd been brought from a Chinese supermarket, but couldn't couldn't

(09:00):
give a location. Then she eventually said that she had
been foraging and deathcat mushrooms were identified as the toxin.
She had a dehydrator that she had got rid off
very quickly after the event. And also one of the
things I thought was interesting that came out at trial,
she also had a couple of mobile phones. And I'd
be interested in your take on this. This fifty year

(09:21):
old woman has two mobile phones moving this in cards
around and she did a number of factory resets on
those phones in the days after this event happened, and
she also did one of those by distance when the
police had actually taken that phone. That was pretty cool, yeah, right,
and not normal, not normal for a fifty year old

(09:43):
woman to have, you know, these phones that she does
these resets on. Anyway, Subsequently, it took five days for
two of the victims ste and six days for the
third victim to die, and then obviously the investigation unfolded
from there. I think homicide were involved after a couple
of days, even before people were dying. Aeron Patterson herself

(10:04):
claimed to have been slightly and well. She did go
to hospital very briefly, but discharged herself against medical advice,
and there was no evidence she was actually onwell at
that stage. So that's basically, in a nutshell what happened.
And obviously two years later she has been found guilty
of the three murders and attempted murder and she is

(10:24):
now going to spend in essence for the rest of
her life in prison.

Speaker 1 (10:27):
Yeah, I'd say that's a likely likely scenario looking at
the police investigation, because I'm obviously interested in the way
it would be approached. When it was first report, that
was a doctor that drew the attention to the police
and said, okay, it's for someone to come into a
hospital one person, but when you got three people, there's

(10:50):
a suspicion attached. So that's when police first became involved.
When the doctors made calls.

Speaker 2 (10:56):
Well, it was the doctor my understanding, it was the
doctor that had treated Aaron Patterson. So she attended hospital
saying she was unwell, but they couldn't find any physical signs,
you know, she seemed perfectly healthy. All her ops were normal,
So she wanted to discharge herself immediately, and that the
doctor was suspicious by her behavior that was treating her,

(11:18):
so she did discharge herself, and he called the police saying,
you know this is unusual. Her behavior were suspicious.

Speaker 1 (11:25):
Yeah, appropriate too. You wouldn't want this one slipping through.
So okay, you've got a situation like that. So I'm
imagining when the police turn up, they'd get all the
details of what took place. You've got five people at
the lunch, four of them are critically ill, and that
the person that prepared the meal is not showing signs

(11:47):
of the poisoning that the other victims went through. I think,
and I've heard it said that the fact that the
Ian Wilkinson didn't die is sort of a floor in
her planning of the murders.

Speaker 2 (12:03):
Well, I certainly think he was very influential. I mean,
we can't say what influenced the jury because we can
never ask them in Australia, right, but from his evidence
he was very compelling. I thought he did very well
given imagine the pressure he was under in court, the
situation he was having to recall. So he did almost die.
He was very lucky to survive. But he could give

(12:25):
evidence of the different color plates that we used at
that lunch, and that became quite crucial. So he said
that she served three, sorry, four portions. They were each
individual portions of beef Wellington on the same color plates,
and there was one that was different, and that was
the one that Aaron patinated. So you could extrapolate from

(12:46):
that that she wanted to be able to clearly identify
hers against all the others. Now, she said that she
just doesn't have enough of the same color plates, which
I mean, that's possible, right. It really depends on the person.
Because when I heard that, I was thinking, I break
plates all the time. And I realized last weekend I
had some guests over and I didn't have enough plates.

(13:07):
I had to use a picnic plate because I didn't
have enough plates. And I was like, well, that's embarrassing.
Those people are fine, and well, yes, and I just
actually everyone just sat down where they chose at dinner.
I didn't actually choose the seating. No, I just didn't
have enough flates because I break them all the time.
It won't shock you to know that I'm clumsy, but

(13:30):
I did. I thought about that then because I was like,
I have to use a picnic plate. That's embarrassing. But
I thought of that situation. But I can see why
Ian noticed that you know, and it does seem unusual
that she had this different color plate and she allocated
who Ape was.

Speaker 1 (13:45):
And maybe at the time it didn't stand there. But
if in the situation the way I'd played out the
mb looking back there and go okay, that's interesting, Well, I.

Speaker 2 (13:54):
Think it depends. I mean, me not having that in
plates doesn't matter to me. I'm not that kind of person.
But for some people would have found that embarrassing and
it would have been unusual for them, And so I
think it depends on Aaron Patterson. But also my understanding
is and I think it was Heather, but somebody may
correct me if I'm wrong. But Heather also mentioned when
she was first taken in the ambulance that the plates

(14:14):
were different colors.

Speaker 1 (14:15):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (14:15):
Now, if that's something when you're unwell in an ambulance
and that's something you feel the need to share, obviously
it's something that stood out to you.

Speaker 1 (14:24):
Okay. Now, from a policing point of view, the crucial
part on that would be the toxicology examinations of what
cause the illness and subsequent depths. But also you'd be
looking at getting a version like who prepared the meal,
who served the meal and getting the version from that person.
Do you know any details about what the version that

(14:47):
Aaron Patterson provide the police first up?

Speaker 2 (14:49):
Now, my understanding is that she basically served that meal
and she didn't have any assistance with that, and I
think he and Wilkinson confirmed that. I'd have to I'm
digging into my memory, but I think people offered to
a sister, but she insisted on doing all herself. So
she made the meal, she purchased the ingredients. No one

(15:10):
else had a hand in it was. What was also
interesting about the meal though the two there were two
Patterson children, oh who we can't discuss in any more
detail than that, except to say that they weren't at
the meal. They were off at the movies, right, So
they did not eat the meal. However, Erin did give
them the leftovers, but she'd scrape the mushrooms off. She
said the children didn't like mushrooms. What's interesting is the

(15:33):
medigs were telling her to get the children checked out,
and she didn't because she wasn't concerned about them because
she'd remove the mushrooms. Now, how did she know that
it was the mushrooms of all that were the problem
with the meal? You would get them checked, wouldn't.

Speaker 1 (15:50):
You got most definitely?

Speaker 2 (15:52):
Is there any reason you can think of that you
would not at least get them checked via medical professionally.

Speaker 1 (15:58):
See the type of thing we're talking about here, and
the type of things that you're raising, they're the red
flags from an investigator's point of view, They're the things
that you'd be looking at. Okay, this is a little
bit unusual. If Aaron got sick as well, it would
change the way that you'd focus on the investigation. But
all these things are sort of adding up, these little

(16:19):
things that would certainly put the put the suspicion right
on her. Having said that, there's still a lot of
work to do to prove this case. I looked at
it from the start, and I formed my own own
opinion right from the start when snippets of information were
coming out. But it's one thing to have an opinion,
it's another thing to prove the case. Do you think

(16:43):
this was a difficult case to investigate and prove?

Speaker 2 (16:46):
I do, because it goes back to that intent, you know,
we had the crown had to demonstrate intent, and that's
always going to be a challenging I remember when she
was arrested. It was about three months post the event,
and people were saying, especially in the media, art it's
taken so long to arrest her, And I was like,
when I was doing interviews about it, I was like
three months and a multiple death investigation is not a

(17:10):
long time. They had to collect the CCTV. They were
looking for electronic equipment at her house that they needed
to get analyzed. They had the dehydrator which she dumped
around four days after the lunch for which there's CCTV
evidence of her doing, so that's you know, this was
not well planned. But they needed to send that abroad
to see whether they were deathcap mushroom spores in that desicator,

(17:33):
so that wasn't an expertise we had in Australia. So
all of this had to be gathered before they could
arrest her. They had to obviously develop the brief of evidence.
So three months was not a long time before arresting her.
But I think it would have been very difficult because, Okay,
they may have had evidence that she had been foraging,
for example, but proving that she intentionally chose death cap

(17:57):
mushrooms and intentionally put them in that meal, there's a
leap there that they had to fill in those gaps
for the jury to.

Speaker 1 (18:04):
Be able to approve that. I suppose from a starting point,
you haven't got multiple suspects in this. You're looking at
the obvious suspect is a person that prepared the meal,
served the meal, and the one person that wasn't impacted
from the meal, even though that she was sitting down
at the dinner table. What were the circumstances in why

(18:27):
the people were there, Like, she wasn't divorced from her husband,
but they're separated. Yeah, I'm all for keeping families friendly
after separation, but what was the basis of these people
being invited for lunch?

Speaker 2 (18:42):
Well, she was apparently quite close to her in laws
and Simon's family. You know, they've been married a long time.
She was obviously the mother of their grandchildren, et cetera.
And things have got a little like crimonious, and there'd
been a distance between them that she is mentioned and
there are some text messages that were released in and
she said that she invited them around because she was

(19:03):
trying to kind of, you know, regenerate that relationship. And
also she claimed to have cancer and so she was
kind of playing on the sympathies. I guess these are
really kind, lovely people, you know, and they went around
there to support her, and she knew that she would
be able to manipulate them into coming around by telling

(19:25):
them a sob story.

Speaker 1 (19:27):
Was that pulled out to them? First?

Speaker 2 (19:28):
Up?

Speaker 1 (19:28):
Did she announce that she's suffering then illness or yes?

Speaker 2 (19:32):
Yeah, yeah, she told them, and that's why she wanted
to come around, because I think she said something like
this maybe the last time we're all together.

Speaker 1 (19:38):
Okay, Well that's a hard invite to to.

Speaker 2 (19:42):
How do you say, no, oh, no, okay, you've got cancer. No,
we're not going to come to lunch. You know.

Speaker 1 (19:47):
I suppose the other thing about this investigation too, like
there's one thing to serve something that you know is
going to make people sick. But to prove murder, you've
got to prove the intended murder or a total reckless indifference.
So did she know about the effect of death cap mushrooms?

Speaker 2 (20:05):
Well, now that is a good question. It would be
difficult to prove that she knew about death cap mushrooms
right specifically, but there was evidence that she knew where
they were available in the area. So there are websites
where you know, people go foraging and people with an

(20:25):
interest in fungi will say what they've found, so either
people can go and look at it if it's particularly unusual,
or in fact avoid it. So there are a couple
of people who had seen death cap mushrooms growing and
had put them on these websites to warn people not
to forage in that area because death cups look very normal,
which is another part of this. Everything looks normal, right,

(20:47):
She looks normal, the lunch looks normal. Death caps look harmless.
So everyone's like, don't go and forage there because there
are death caps there. Now there's evidence that she actually
knew specifically where these death caps were, and so whether
we can prove that she knew the toxicity is a
different question. But I mean, death caps are highly toxic.

(21:11):
People die every year from mushroom toxicity. There's four different
topsins in it. It's really very brutal. You only need
a very small amount to cause death depending on the
person you know, health size, etc. All of that. But yeah,
she certainly knew where death caps were growing. She originally

(21:32):
denied having a habit of foraging and then later acknowledged that,
which I think she started during COVID, that was a
hobby that she developed.

Speaker 1 (21:41):
Okay, And I think police gathered the evidence with an
expert on phones and triangulation of They did to locations
where it was known that those type of mushrooms were growing.

Speaker 2 (21:54):
So they knew that she'd been to these websites which
had actually specifically said where there are death caps, and
then they could use a cell power data to place
her in and around those areas for protracted amounts of time.

Speaker 1 (22:06):
Okay, So the case is building, but still very much
a circumstantial case. And I think that the problem from
a policing point of view, you've got with it this
particular case, there's always an alternative hypothesis that it could
have been in a tragic accident.

Speaker 2 (22:22):
Which is exactly what the defense said. This is just
an awful foraging accident. And what's interesting here, and this
would be good to hear your take on this. There
was no alternative outcome, So if she was found not guilty,
there was no manslaughter on the table. It was guilty
or nothing, so she walked. Basically if she was found not.

Speaker 1 (22:42):
Guilty, guilty, So that takes a level of proof to
a much higher level.

Speaker 2 (22:47):
Doesn't it Because three people are dead and a force
almost died, and yet if she's found not guilty, there
is no culpability there she walks free.

Speaker 1 (22:57):
Well, manslaughter would have been the option of she knew
it was going to make them sick, but she never
intended to kill them. It would have been easier, the
bar would have been lower for the prosecutors to it
was off the table. Yeah, well, so is it?

Speaker 2 (23:11):
As police? What do you make of that? I mean,
is that do you think that was a choice they
made or is that just when they charged her that's
not something well they considered.

Speaker 1 (23:22):
I'm speaking hypothetically here, but I would I'd look at
they've gathered the evidence that this meets the meets the
level of murder, and that's that's what we're going for.

Speaker 2 (23:32):
The risk though massive rest.

Speaker 1 (23:34):
Or nothing, I suppose. But there was a lot of
evidence about her being untruthful. As I understand too, version
of events didn't quite add up. Now, it's one thing
to have someone admit to a crime, and that makes
it a lot easier, but if they're denying the crime,
sometimes their denials and untruths can work heavily against them,
and the weight or heavy weight can be placed on

(23:55):
their untruthfulness.

Speaker 2 (23:58):
Yeah, and certainly that out during the trial. But the
judge in this summation made very clear to the jury
that she wasn't being she wasn't charged with lying. You know,
she was charged with murder and attempted murder, and lying
doesn't make you a murderer. But she then, obviously, you know,
she gave evidence and the jury were then asked to
believe her account even though she's saying, yes, I lied,

(24:21):
and she had these reasons for lying, but she's trying
to then convince them, Okay, I've lied, I've been caught
out in all of these lies. But I'm telling you
the truth now, and all of the witnesses of which
they were like fifty odd and like nine weeks of
evidence previous to that, that's all wrong. You have just
got to believe my word, even though she was still
lying on the stand, and she was caught out in

(24:43):
lies on the stand. So how could the jury believe
anything that she said when everything that she told them
could be disproved? You know, even when she said how
you know the reason that she didn't get she didn't
get sick was apparently because she had bolimia, so she'd
made herself vomit just after the meal. So therefore she
was saying she hadn't actually ingested any of the toxin,

(25:05):
or only a very minor amount for which you know,
she said she felt unwell, but no evidence of that.
But she said that she was having I think a
gastric band fitted, and she gave them the name of
a hospital. That clinic didn't offer that kind of surgery,
and she had no appointment there. So everything she was
still saying was lying. There's no evidence of her having

(25:26):
believed it. Now. I know people lie about eating disorders.
They do hide it. They're very good at hiding it
because for many psychological reasons, often shame. But nobody in
her sphere had any idea that she allegedly had this
eating disorder, which would be unusual to be able to
hide it from people. You know, you've been married to,
et cetera. And yeah, this hospital for which she said

(25:47):
she had an appointment knew nothing about her.

Speaker 1 (25:50):
I looking at the case in the police, the strength
of the case would be able to being able to
disprove all the information that provide. And the judge is
quite right in warning the jury that lying is not
the not the offense. But when you add it all up,
these inconsistencies, and it's showing an intent right from the

(26:11):
start to provide misinformation.

Speaker 2 (26:14):
Exactly.

Speaker 1 (26:15):
We're surmising what the jury, what's going through the jury's mind.
But I would imagine looking at it from a police
point of view, I'd want to be presenting all that
evidence to the courts, to the jury and let them
make their own assessment of it.

Speaker 2 (26:27):
Exactly. And they showed the original police interview in which
she was lying, you know, saying that she didn't forage, etcetera.
So you know she started from the very beginning. Now,
I mean, you're a police officer, for god, I don't
know how long people lie, don't they? Yes, they tell
it because they're obviously trying to convince you of their story,
even if they haven't done it. They might lie because
they're worried they may bring something up. Yeah, yeah, exactly.

(26:51):
I mean how often do they lie about stupid little
things that you don't even care about, because you know
they don't want to get in trouble over something else,
you like, we're we're not in investigating that theft. I
don't care what I want to know is how this
person died, but they might still lie about it. So
she was lying right from the beginning. But I think
it was just the pleasor of lies. There was nothing

(27:11):
that that woman said that was true.

Speaker 1 (27:13):
What were your observations, because you have a deep understanding
about this world, what was your observations of what you
saw that presented about her in the media watching the
case play out?

Speaker 2 (27:25):
Well, I remember those we had a quick chat where
we started. I remember that first interview I saw with
her when she was standing by the car. I think
at that stage it was a few days after and
I think I think Gail, Heather, and Donn had already
died by time she gave this interview. Ian was still
a news coma and she was standing by the car.

(27:46):
And I don't know whether you remember this one, but
the press pack kind of surrounded her car at the
house as she got out and she stood then she
was kind of wiping her eyes and she was saying
how distressed she was.

Speaker 3 (27:58):
Devastated by what's the loss of Donn. Donn is still
in hospital, the loss of Anane and Heather and Gail.
It were some of the best people that I've ever met.
Gail was like.

Speaker 4 (28:18):
That I didn't have because my mom passed away four
years ago and Gail's never been anything back good and Kline,
to me and Heather were some of the best.

Speaker 2 (28:29):
People I've ever met. They never did anything wrong to me.

Speaker 4 (28:31):
I'm so devastating about what's happened, lost to the community
and to the families, and to my own children have
lost their grandmother.

Speaker 2 (28:43):
Can can you tell us a bit more about the lunch?

Speaker 3 (28:50):
What I can tell you.

Speaker 2 (28:54):
Is that I just can't fathom what has happened. I
just can't fathom what has happened. And yet there were
no tears on her fingers, and she kept kind of
looking down, and it reminded me of a child play acting,
and I was like, hmm. And I remember thinking, you
shouldn't be talking the press. This is really not a
good look for you. You're not doing yourself any favors. But

(29:17):
she continued talking to the press after that, and I
was thinking, I don't know who's advising you. She had
a lawyer by this stage, but they need to advise
you to stop talking to the press because the impression
you're giving is a bad one. And if this ever
ends up in trial, none of this is going away,
like people are going to be rewatching these these interviews,
and it was all about her. It was like, this

(29:37):
is affecting me. I can't leave my home. You know,
it's very difficult for me. Three people are dead, and
there was no sense of any sympathy for them.

Speaker 1 (29:46):
For the victims, for the people. Yeah, and even if
she wasn't involved in it, you would be if.

Speaker 2 (29:52):
I could to meal, if I could to meal, and
several people are dying, and that's possible. Gary never eat
at my house. I'm not very good at this, but
would if it was an accident, because you know, I'm
just that bad at it. You'd still can you imagine
if you've caused that, the guilt you would feel causing
that harm to people, And there was no sense of that.

Speaker 1 (30:12):
Definitely would would come across the other. The other thing
about mothers like this, and I think this is why,
and we touched on it when we first started speaking,
that people see her as an average person and yeah,
that's what.

Speaker 2 (30:26):
And a mother, a mother, that's what people keep saying
to me. Could she do this? She's that this mother earth,
you know, nurture is all mothers are, you know, kind generous,
caring people while they haven't met mine. So I was like,
I can understand how mothers could do it.

Speaker 1 (30:43):
I cringe when I hear people she couldn't do it
because she's a mother, and she's a mother. What And
in the jury system, that's part of what the police
had got the work past. When I imagine a female
has been charged with murdering, but she's a mother, How
could she do this?

Speaker 2 (30:57):
Well, we don't say that about fathers, do we.

Speaker 1 (31:00):
Why not?

Speaker 2 (31:00):
You know you're going to father, You're going to a family
annihilator like Rowing Baxter who killed Hannah Clark and the
beautiful children. Nobody goes that he's a farmer, how could
he do that? The other thing people have said to me,
which is interesting, is well, what did Simon do for
her to hate him this much? And I'm like, oh,
you know, do you want to blame the victim anymore?

Speaker 1 (31:20):
Here?

Speaker 2 (31:21):
Again? Did we do that with Hannah Clark? Absolutely not,
because that would have been appalling to say, well, it
was clearly her fault. She really wound him up. Who
would say that? But it's okay apparently for somebody to
murder his family and somehow it's his fault because she's
a woman. It's like, well, he must have done something. No, no,
this is all on her. There is no reason that

(31:42):
could possibly excuse what she has done.

Speaker 1 (31:44):
When we look at this case, looking at looking at
motive and opportunity capability. Motive, so opportunity capability, you tick
those boxes that the motive with this particular.

Speaker 2 (31:57):
Oh yeah, that's the question, isn't it. Yeah?

Speaker 1 (31:59):
Well, and I think it's part of the fascination. Why
would she kill? Because it's a chilling thing to do
to sit there, like sometimes your murders are a reaction
that someone loses control, loses their temper, lashes out something.

Speaker 2 (32:13):
Yeah, situation or explosive, yeah, in the moment.

Speaker 1 (32:16):
But this land is and we're working on the basis
she's been convicted of it. This is something that takes
a lot of planning and then that's just in the
lead up to it and then consciously let that let
the murder play out by feeding these people and to
watch and it's.

Speaker 2 (32:33):
Chilling, it is. She had to prepare the bushrooms in
that dehydrator, she cooked that meal. Now any stage she
could have gone, actually, what am I doing?

Speaker 1 (32:42):
What am I doing?

Speaker 2 (32:42):
This is wrong? Like why would I do this. She
then plated those meals up her separately to make sure
she didn't get sick, and then she watched them eat
it all while playing this happy families. It's chilling, it is,
and so people keep saying, what's the motive? But then
I pointed out to someone that I was like, well,
even if she told us, which she's not going to

(33:03):
write because she loves the control of this, and I
think that's why she liked talking to the media. She
was enjoying the attention. She was trying to control the narrative.
But even if she told us what her motive was,
there is no motive that can justify this. We're still
going to be going what, you know, even if she said, oh,
well Simon did this and they did this, We're still

(33:23):
it's going to be, you know, inexplicable regardless of what
she says, because you could never justify this ever. To
sit there and kill people in cold in cold blood like.

Speaker 1 (33:32):
That that is, and watch them.

Speaker 2 (33:36):
And knowing they're going to die a horrible, painful, prolonged.

Speaker 1 (33:40):
Death, it is chilling. With the with the trial, did
any of that come out? The motive?

Speaker 2 (33:47):
What?

Speaker 1 (33:47):
What did the prosecution put forward for motive, like, you
don't have to prove mot and they didn't.

Speaker 2 (33:52):
They didn't suggest a motive, which is difficult though because
everyone wants a motive. The jury wants a motive, right,
and it's easier to prove a case if you can
suggest a motive. But they didn't. There wasn't There wasn't
a motive.

Speaker 1 (34:04):
Well, it's something. The motive is what you look to
pep steer you towards the suspect in the murder investigation,
but it's not the proof of murder. You don't have
to prove the motive. But the trial, the trial went
for nine or ten weeks?

Speaker 2 (34:19):
Was it ten weeks? Nine weeks of the prosecution case,
And when they didn't speak to motives specifically, they did
look at the intra familiar relationships. They did put some
text messages up to show that there was some tensions,
so they kind of they looked at family dynamics without
actually saying a motive. So that was kind of as

(34:42):
far as they went in that area. Yeah, nine weeks.
I think one of the police officers on the stand
for like eight day solid just just one officer, fifty
or so witnesses across those nine weeks and then Aaron
Patterson gave evidence very unusual, right.

Speaker 1 (35:00):
Unusual because for people that don't understand, you're not obliged
as an accused person to give evidence at the trial.
And then murder trials, it's very very rare that the
accused gets in and gives evidence.

Speaker 2 (35:12):
Yeah, they because a right to retain their silence.

Speaker 1 (35:16):
Well, and it opens up to cross examination. So that's
the thing, right, once you're in there and then you
open the doors and the prosecutor that can start asking
all sorts of questions and.

Speaker 2 (35:27):
No holds barred, Right, you're literally open to that. And
that's that's in essence what happened. So she gave evidence
for a few days, can't remember how many. In the
end it was over a week, I think, and she
did quite well. So she was very controlled, very measured.
She showed appropriate levels of emotion, but it wasn't histrionic,
you know, it wasn't over the top. But across she

(35:50):
seemed aggravated with some of the questions. She came across
sometimes as quite self righteous. And I interviewed for Motive
a Method with Tim a cup of the journalists with
their every single day right they watched their entire trial,
So they watched the jury throughout this, and their impression
was actually it kind of oscillated across the time which
way the jury were going. But when she was being

(36:13):
cross examined, that's when they think she lost the jury
because she got combative. She was trying to outwit the prosecutor,
she was trying to show them up. She was like,
it was almost like she just wanted to win. She
just wanted to control it. She just wanted to have
her say and prove she was smarter. Yeah. Well, look,

(36:36):
people are trying to diagnose her, right, but I'm hoping
for sentencing she will actually be formally assessed by sight. Yeah. Yeah,
so I've been really trying to steer away from kind
of making commentary on her individually. However, if we broaden
that out, the kind of person who always thinks they're smarter,

(36:57):
always has to win, always wants their say and things.
In the end, you know they are better than everyone
else and smarter than everyone else, does show those narcissistic traits,
and you must have come across that way.

Speaker 1 (37:08):
Well, it's interesting when we break down the nature of
the crime she knew, Like quite often there's a murder
and people don't ever expect to be spoken to by police.
But she backed herself that clearly police are going to
be involved in a situation where three people died intending
for a fourth person to die. She knew she was

(37:30):
going to be cross examined, so that tells me something
about she was going to be interviewed and spoken to
by police. That tells me something about her that she
knew this was coming. So if I was approaching her
from an investigative point of view, I'd be thinking, Okay,
what do we got here. She knows that we would
be speaking to her, so she's prepared for it as

(37:51):
much as she can. It changes the dynamics, so she's
backing herself to pull the wool over the police eyes
and everyone else. It's looking the media. It's interesting.

Speaker 2 (38:03):
Yeah, absolutely. I think she thought she could outsmart everyone.
She could convince the police it was an accident she
could complete, She could convince the media, the public. But
I think the media interviews were about the fact she
was enjoying it, the attention. She was enjoying the attention.

Speaker 1 (38:19):
Yeah, well to me, and this comes without any qualifications whatsoever.
But it doesn't surprise me that someone that's capable of
committing a crime like this for some bizarre reason with
also like the attention that forthcoming and yeah, I mean
playing the victim. Look I'm going picked on.

Speaker 2 (38:37):
Oh she is very good at that. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
that kind of you know, people describe her as meek.
You know, she kind of stands there looking quiet and
looking down and she's got you know, you literally would
you could live next door to that woman for twenty
years and not ever have noticed her. You know, she's
just so forgettable. Yet underneath that there is something incredibly

(38:58):
dark that could plan a crime of this nature and
go through with it and still show zero remorse afterwards.

Speaker 1 (39:06):
Well that's the thing, Like she's got to back herself
that I can do this, so I can sit in
the room knowing hard questions are going to be asked
and I'm not going to break under those. Under that interrogation,
what was the police officer You said the police officer
was in the witness box for eight days. That is
a very long long time. And I would think with
a case like this, a lot of it's medical based

(39:29):
circumstantial evidence. So the credibility of the police generally when
you spend a long time in there, it's because they're
trying to rip you apart.

Speaker 2 (39:38):
I think which one that was. I think that was
the officer. It was looking at the cell tower data,
except right, I think so. Somebody again may correct me,
but yeah, certainly, you know, they interrogated the evidence, and
so people have been asking me as well. You know,
obviously she's probably in a defense a going to try
and seek leave to appear. Whether they get it or

(39:59):
not is a different question. And also, you know the
jury were out for ages. Does that mean anything? But
the jury weren't out for that long. It was six
and a half days. They had fifty experts to go
through the transcripts. You know, nine weeks our ten weeks
including hers of evidence. That's not a long time. Is
it not a jury to be out? It may have

(40:21):
felt interminable to the rest of us waiting.

Speaker 1 (40:23):
Yeah, I don't think it's an extraordinarily long time for
a relatively complex metal like that. Was there anything that
came out in the trial that surprised you like you
didn't expect?

Speaker 2 (40:35):
Well, the biggest thing that surprised me was her taking
the stand. In some ways, that was the bit that
I was like, hmm, because I mean, I'm just guessing.
I don't know, but I would imagine her defense counsel
had suggested against that because of the cross exam issue.
But then when I thought about it, I thought, yeah,
remembering back to those interviews you did, I can see

(40:56):
her wanting to do that. Kind of fitted with the
kind of person. But I mean, that was probably the
most striking thing of the trial, was her choosing to
take the stand and the combative nature of the evidence
at her questioning your answers at the end, I think
was what I found most interesting. I think she is
a you know, putting aside the horrible thing that she's done,

(41:20):
horrible not being a strong enough word, obviously, then she's
a really interesting character to study because she's you know,
nobody had any sense of this. You know, her family
were totally innocent to what was being planned, and she
must be a pretty good actress to get away with that,
don't you think to keep that to herself.

Speaker 1 (41:40):
Look, I think it was the fact that she's backed
herself in to I can pull this crime off and
get away with it, because I'm no I'm going to
be questioned to be but I'm going to be able
to manage it. She my understanding, she's relatively intelligent. She's
another complais so yeah.

Speaker 2 (41:59):
Yeah, no, she seems I mean, certainly in the way
she handled the questions when she was on trial, especially
the Crown questions. If she didn't understand something, she asked
for clarification, so she came across I mean, she seems Yeah,
she seems intelligent. But then some of the things she
did was so dumb, like getting rid of the dehydrator

(42:21):
at a tip where there's CCTV evidence where they can
ping her phone to going even though so, but then
on the other hand, she's got two mobile phones, one
of which they didn't find, so she's wiping sim cards,
but she doesn't think of the CCTV at the tip.
So in some ways she's smart and in some way
super dumb. But it's almost like she's just so arrogant

(42:43):
and that she thinks she's going to just get away
with it.

Speaker 1 (42:46):
I read the reports in the media that she was
a bit of a true crime buff.

Speaker 2 (42:50):
Yes, yes, yeah, that's apparently the case loved her. True
crime we can't talk.

Speaker 1 (42:56):
Right, Well, I'm glad there are true crime buffs.

Speaker 2 (42:59):
Yeah, no, right, Otherwise we would both be out of
a job.

Speaker 1 (43:03):
Let's nothing encourage people to put it in practice. But yeah,
that's so, that's fascination. But the thing that really gets
me is the amount of preparation and planning for this.
And we discussed it, but I keep coming back to it.

Speaker 2 (43:17):
Bym the dehydrator foraging the mushrooms, months in advance, months
in advance drying them. You know, this is months, if
not longer, of planning. And the under two phones too,
And I know that two phones aren't necessarily suspicious. And
we had that conversation once from around you remember some
of we have two phones, and I was like, that
looks shady, and you said I've got two phones, and
I was like, you so have I but that person

(43:39):
doesn't look like the kind of person you would have
two phones.

Speaker 1 (43:41):
See, it's important not to judge people.

Speaker 2 (43:43):
I know, but we both you know, but you have
a work phone and you have your private phone. But
we also know that people have like a work phone
and a drug dealer phone. Right, most standard people don't
have two phones because it's a pain, isn't it juggling
both phones. It's annoying, But I know he does it
if they don't.

Speaker 1 (43:59):
Have to again. And you and you've talked about her
being an average person in the framework of a middle
aged lady, a mother living in the she need two phones?
Why the two phones? With the jury, I think a
big a difficult point for the jury is to get
over the fact that a woman sitting in the dock

(44:20):
charge with a horrendous crime murdering three people, attempting to
murder a fourth person, and the nature of the crime.
In my experience, juries always struggle with that because their
perception is a mother.

Speaker 2 (44:33):
Yeah, and they look at her like and you look,
you do you look at it and you go, really,
you know, I think they think somebody who could commit
mass murder because she is now formerly a mass murder
as she killed you know, three people in the same event.
They expect them to like have horns and a tail
and look quite look evil, right, like to be able
to We like to think that we can pick them
out and we can identify them because that makes us

(44:56):
feel safer.

Speaker 1 (44:57):
Well, I think it ties in with what we all
learned growing up stranger danger and yeah, yeah, person.

Speaker 2 (45:04):
That person's odd, you know, there's something wrong with them.
Avoid that person. And this person sitting in front of
them on the stand. Is this average woman, this mother,
this you know, she's the husband and the family and
she's just cut this lunch and you're and they're trying
to see a monster there. The perception is there isn't one,

(45:25):
and so they're like they're trying to gel these two things.
It's very boring looking woman against one of the most
infamous crimes now in modern Australian criminal history.

Speaker 1 (45:36):
But that, I think is why it polarized people, because
I formed a view when bits and pieces of information
were coming out and the amound of people said, Oh,
she couldn't have done that.

Speaker 2 (45:45):
I look at her, how could she have done?

Speaker 1 (45:48):
And she was baking?

Speaker 2 (45:49):
Could she have planned? Have you seen her?

Speaker 1 (45:51):
She was baking a pie.

Speaker 2 (45:54):
It's it's it seems ridiculous. And I know I laughed then,
and I think that's it's so ridiculous, it's almost funny, right,
And I think that's where a lot of the memes
have come from, and a lot of the jokes. It's
been various comedians making jokes and I get that, and
I've seen quite a few of them on social media
and whatever. And somebody even was at a restaurant and

(46:16):
their special was beef Wellington. They were abroad and they
sent it to me and went dinners sorted. So there's
this general now like joke atmosphere. But then what you
said at the beginning, they've forgotten that three people died
horrendously a fourth died. And imagine the impact now on
Simon Patterson, the Patterson children in Wilkinson, the community. It's

(46:36):
a really small little place. They were a church community
in Wilkinson's the pasta that the pasta there, and imagine
the impact on those people. So whilst everyone's joking because
it seems so bizarre, actually this is going to change
these people's lives forever. They're never going to recover fully
from this. Their lives will never be the same.

Speaker 1 (46:56):
I think it's important that we get a cross set
because there's this disconnect and I think every one of
us would have heard the joke about the mushroom pie
and different things because it just became part of the
fabric of our community or society.

Speaker 2 (47:08):
And I think it still will. Yeah, I think there's
going to be you know, we're going to take this
on as you know, as part of our social consciousness
now going forward.

Speaker 1 (47:18):
Yeah, and that's the impact that's had. But definitely we
shouldn't lose sight of the fact what a horrendous crime
it is and the people's lives have been taken and
the people's lives that have been affected. Women who kill?
What's I've got my views on it, and I'll discuss
a couple of people that have been convicted of crimes.

(47:40):
What's your take on Obviously more men commit further than
than women, but what's your take on women who kill?

Speaker 2 (47:47):
Yeah, I think women generally kill largely for different reasons too.
Men'll be interested in your take on that. Men. We're
obviously talking into personal crimes, so you know ex's partners,
especially when they're leaving. We know that domestic vi aren'ce
a massive thing. Men seem to be very I would
say the ego driven when it comes out. You know,
women who leave them, they just can't accept that are

(48:07):
being left, and you know they want to be in control,
and a lot of those kind of domestic homicides happen
around that kind of rage and that ego driven crime.
Women seem to kill for different reasons, sometimes financial reasons,
sometimes jealousy, rage, but they tend to do it in
a different way as well. Poison is actually quite a

(48:29):
common method of choice. They don't tend, don't. I'm not
saying never. They don't tend to stab people or shoot people,
strangle people, for example. Obviously it's harder for a woman
strangle a man generally, but poison being a method of choice,
are a little more hands off with their methods. But
fortunately less women have those inclinations than men, although obviously

(48:53):
women do capable of Absolutely, yeah, absolutely came.

Speaker 1 (48:57):
I look at a couple of cases that I was
involved in the aware of, but one of the cases,
I'm not sure if you're aware of it. Natasha Darcy,
Beth Darcy, the widow of Waltcher. She was on up
near Newcastle Whale or says knock up around that area,
and she killed her partner by poisoning him with horse steroids.

(49:20):
And that was something that she was for all intents
and purposes, someone that looked like fitted into society, and
she ended up murdering, murdering her partner.

Speaker 2 (49:33):
I mean, how many people did you arrest? Actually, if
you just looked at them, if they walked past you
on the street, you'd go, they look weird. They don't right,
they look so normal. And that's when, especially when there's
people are worried about children and they go, oh, the
kids shouldn't talk to that guy down there. He looks
really dodgy. The dodgy diet guy down the road is
not who they should be fearful of, because the children

(49:54):
are going to pick up any discomfort. They're the ones
you need to worry about. Are the ones you look
absolutely normal, who were teaching your kids' sport or working
in their school or their daycare. Want to kind of
contemporary example, it's not the weird guy down the road.
He hasn't done anything. He's just unusual.

Speaker 1 (50:12):
Well, it just shows that you can't really judge people
what they're capable of. With that that particular case, with
the Darcy case, this is my recollection of it, that
she attempted to poison her husband before her previous husband,
she attempted to poison him and on her computer they

(50:33):
were access to.

Speaker 2 (50:35):
Yeah, I'm not laughing. How often does that happen? Why
do they leave it on that How to poison somebody
with horse tranquilized? Really?

Speaker 1 (50:45):
How to cover that up? But the bizarre, the bizarre
thing with that case her new partner when she poisoned him.
The ambulance officer was her ex husband that turned up
to God, are you.

Speaker 2 (51:00):
So she tried to kill the ambulance officer who turned
up to treat you.

Speaker 1 (51:05):
The ambulance officer was her previous husband. So it was
a fascinating fascinating So she.

Speaker 2 (51:11):
Was a black widow then, and actually with black widows
who were trying to bump off their husbands, there is
often a history of attempts or previous husbands that have
died that may have been that may have been ruled
as natural causes or accidental and then funnily, there's another
death and it was similar circumstances, and these poor unfortunate
people have both managed to overdose on horse tranquilizers.

Speaker 1 (51:32):
How unusual the unusual.

Speaker 2 (51:34):
Think what was her what was her motive?

Speaker 1 (51:36):
It was? I think it was financial on that one.
That was he was a rich farmer, relatively rich, and
it was an opportunity to gain.

Speaker 2 (51:48):
With those black widows, that's often that the it is
a financial motive, and they quite often involve other men
that are easily coerced. There seems to be a type
of man that could be taken in by these women.
Women can get them to do whatever they want.

Speaker 1 (52:02):
We often, yeah, they can manipulate to me, because.

Speaker 2 (52:05):
We're not dumping off the new one. I'm not saying it, Gary,
but yeah, okay, I'll let you say that.

Speaker 1 (52:11):
I'm just agreed, we're not that smart.

Speaker 2 (52:17):
They're easily manipulated by women.

Speaker 1 (52:19):
I would Well, I just think it's important that people
understand that women are capable of these type of crimes,
and they always.

Speaker 2 (52:27):
They assume then that there's something in their background which
led them to do it. And there may be mitigating circumstances,
you know, child abuse or whatever. And that's the other
thing people have asked me about in pattern. It's like, well,
do you think there's something so damaged in her background,
in her childhood that made her this way? We look
when it's a woman, we look for in some ways,

(52:47):
we look for excuses why they've done what they We
can't accept that they are just a deeply I mean,
I never use the word evil, but you know, to
kill people, three people in that way, and tend to
kill the force that that is his close as it
would get right. So, but we can't accept that. When
it's a woman. We look for reasons why they must
be that way, it must be Simon's fault. It must
be something in her background. You know, maybe it's actually

(53:10):
just her.

Speaker 1 (53:11):
It's difficult to understand that might be the maternal part
of people, that the mother is there caring for, caring
for kids, and let's see experience. They said, other lady
that we had the detective that went to the crime scene,
that was horrendous. Catherine Mary Knight.

Speaker 2 (53:28):
Oh yes, yes, Now she did have a very very
damaged childhood. Katherine Knight. Yes, but she obviously killed her
husband in an extremely brutal way. That would have been
two thousand. Catherine Knight killed her husband. Yeah, she stabbed him.
She stabbed him a multiple times. She then skinned him.

(53:52):
This is a bit for anyone sensitive listening. This is
not great. But she then hung his skin up and decapitated,
cooked several parts of him and was going to feed
his children from a previous relationship. She was actually going
to feed them to him. Fortunately, thank god the police,

(54:12):
the police got there before that happened. But the plates
and everything were there, and she had it all like
cooking on the stove or something. Yeah, I mean I've
heard from other offices that was an incredibly distressing scene.

Speaker 1 (54:25):
Exactly that that was horrific. But I bring those examples
up only in that, Yeah, with what we're talking with
Aaron Pedison, like, there are many ways and women do
commit crimes, crimes like this, and I think we need
to have an understanding yep.

Speaker 2 (54:41):
And I think Catherine Knight had attempted to kill previous
partners before as well. I think there was a history
of that.

Speaker 1 (54:48):
Yes, yeah, I think you're right on that there was.

Speaker 2 (54:51):
And she has got a full life terriff, so she
will never be released. I think she was the first
woman in Australia who was given a full life tarriff. Yeah, yeah,
so no possibility of she will never be released.

Speaker 1 (55:01):
Well, the nature of the nature of the crime, I
think that's appropriate in the circumstances.

Speaker 2 (55:07):
Yes, but yes, absolutely taking.

Speaker 1 (55:10):
Away from this whole the mushroom murder case, and you
mentioned that people identify it. What's it say about our
society that we're so fascinated and interested in this particular case.

Speaker 2 (55:23):
Well, well, obviously there's the interest in true crime which
we mentioned, which keeps us both employed fortunately, and I
think that you know, I think it may it has
gone to far in some ways in that a lot
of the time we do forget the victims, and I
think we'd kind of started to work on that. I
think things that improve, but this case has really shone

(55:45):
a light on that that. Actually, I think crime is,
especially violent crime, is very normalized. We're very used to it,
We're very used to talking about it and hearing it,
and it doesn't have the same emotional impact that it
used to. And yeah, I worry that we're becoming a
little too entertained as opposed to horrified by it.

Speaker 1 (56:08):
Well, you mentioned about the horrific nature of the death
that those people suffered.

Speaker 2 (56:13):
I can't even imagine prolonged and Simon watched that. Simon
had to watch his mother die, his other family members die,
didn't know if his dad was going to die, and
so did the Patterson children.

Speaker 1 (56:24):
Yeah, it's horrific.

Speaker 2 (56:27):
If you talk about mothering instincts, who would who would
do something that they know their children are going to
have to watch their family die horrendous, torturous deaths and
then how are they ever going to get over that?

Speaker 1 (56:42):
Well, it's yeah, there's a ripple effect with any any murder,
and yeah, passes on to generations. Unfortunately, I think that
the public it's almost a snicker. That's a pie and
poisoning that I don't fully understand the horrendous nature of
this and the mentality of a person that carry that

(57:03):
crime out. So I think that gives people permission to
sort of snicker or laugh at the crime, not fully
appreciating the nature of the crime.

Speaker 2 (57:13):
Well, I hope actually that that might shift when we
get to sentencing, because some of the family may take
the opportunity to read their victim impact statements, which they
know they can, or they may not choose to do it,
and it's entirely up to them. But I mean, you
will have heard hundreds. They're very impactful, aren't they. You know,
when the families do read those or someone needs to
read them. And so when we hear the words from

(57:38):
the people who have been harmed most by this, obviously
except the disease victims, those who are left who are
having to live with this, when we hear their words
and they're reported, maybe then people will get a sense
of the harm that's been caused and that it's actually
not a mean to share on social media.

Speaker 1 (57:55):
Well, I hope so. And there is an important thing
with victim impact states. It was actually a murder investigation
I was involved in early in my career Island camp Lay,
and that was the first time that victim impact statement
was allowed in court on sentencing. And I know the
fueral from the and the reluctance from the legal fraternity

(58:16):
to have this. Well, you know, this is not the
place for victims to comment. We don't care what it is
the place there, well exactly. And I sat there and
watched and it was the first time a victim impact
statement was read out in court, and it was so powerful,
and I think it puts in perspective what we're talking
about here with this particular crime, and the.

Speaker 2 (58:38):
Whole purpose of them is to give the victims and
their families, you know, the secondary victims to murders, etc.
A chance to share have their voice because they didn't
have it. They're witnesses in the criminal justice system, aren't they.
They're not front and center. It's not a victim justice system.
It's a criminal justice system. It's focused on the criminal
and the crime or the accused of the crime. So

(58:58):
it was meant to give them as of ownership of
process and voice in that and so I can't think
anywhere more appropriate then obviously the jury can't hear them
predecision because you you know it would it would influence them.
But for the judge who's not going to be influenced
by those impact statements, it's you know, it gives them
that chance to be heard maybe the first and only time.

Speaker 1 (59:21):
You're quite right, and they're truated. And it's so confusing
when families have murdered victims are going through the court
process because they feel like they're sitting on the sideline.
They've got no in and they are they've got no input,
there's no discussion, They're kept in the dark about so
many things. So it is a good thing that it's

(59:43):
evolved to the victim impact statement. But yeah, well, let's
let's on this encourage people to have a listen to
the impact that this crime has had. Horrendous crime, three people,
as you said, a mass murderer, and.

Speaker 2 (59:58):
You and I know that it will continue to have.
I mean, how many families do you know that you
know the murder may have happened forty fifty years even
and I'm not exaggerating. I've work with family for oh god,
maybe about eight years now, and they lost their sister
fifty two years ago. Now and it's had intergenerational trauma,

(01:00:19):
Like people who don't even know her know the story
and it's affected them because no one's ever been brought
to justice. They don't know what happened, they don't know why,
They just know she was brutally murdered, and it still
traumatizes them.

Speaker 1 (01:00:32):
That's said when you see it, and I've seen it
on quite a few cases where the trauma gets passed
on to the next generation when they're looking for answers,
looking to find that who's responsible, and the kids are
carrying the weight of the parents trying to find the
answers to the murder of their uncle or auntie or
down the track.

Speaker 2 (01:00:50):
But the family's identity shifts around the fact that they've
had someone want some when they love murdered, and it
becomes it's a central pillar of who that family is,
part of their core identity if especially if they don't
get answers. And so I think people don't understand that
this is a news story. Now it's going to drop

(01:01:11):
off the radar until the next part of the legal process.
For this family, they will live this every single day
for the rest of their lives.

Speaker 1 (01:01:19):
Powerful message to to get across so well, we might
we might leave it. Leave it there. On that note,
I think that is a powerful, powerful message. It's always
great and I always enjoy having a chat with you,
and it's always informative.

Speaker 2 (01:01:34):
So do you have anything else to apologize for or
admit you before? I'm sure I'll be able to think
of something next time. I'll think I'll think of something
else you were wrong about, and I'll remind you.

Speaker 1 (01:01:46):
You don't have to highlight my failings blatantly. Obviously I
enjoy it. Actually, Okay, well, I've said at the start,
I don't have to say it again. I was I
don't have to say I was wrong.

Speaker 2 (01:01:57):
They heard it. People want to replay that. It's there
in perpetuity.

Speaker 1 (01:02:02):
Highlight reel from my catch killers I was wrong, Okay,
call it that. Okay, Well, we'll catch up soon, I hope.
I hope your podcast with Tim Watson Monroe is a
method and motive is going well, and we'll have to
catch up soon and make sure Tim encourage us to Tim.

Speaker 2 (01:02:22):
And Duncan getting us into trouble again.

Speaker 1 (01:02:24):
It's never our fault. It's always okay.

Speaker 2 (01:02:27):
Good to talk to you, Thanks very much, by Thanksgaring