October 18, 2025 • 59 mins
When Erin Patterson murdered her former family members with a deadly lunch laced with lethal mushrooms, it caught the attention of the whole world. Author Greg Haddrick joins Gary Jubelin to share the unheard details of the trial, including what Patterson was really like before the calculated killings.
Find out more about Greg Haddrick’s book, The Mushroom Murders, here.
Want to hear more from I Catch Killers? Visit news.com.au.
Watch episodes of I Catch Killers on our YouTube channel here.
Like the show? Get more at icatchkillers.com.au
Advertising enquiries: newspodcastssold@news.com.au
Questions for Gary: icatchkillers@news.com.au
Get in touch with the show by joining our Facebook group, and visiting us on Instagram or Tiktok.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
The public has had a long held fascination with detectives
detective sy aside of life. The average person has 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 talked 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.
(00:47):
Welcome to another episode of I Catch Killers. Aaron Patterson
caught the attention of the entire country when she murdered
her family members by feeding them a meal laced with
lethal mushrooms. Recently, Patterson was said to life in prison
after being convicted of three counts of murder and one
count of attempt murder. And today we're going to examine
(01:08):
the case in great detail from a slightly different perspective.
We're going to look at the case through the eyes
of a fictional duror. Now, I'd like to say this
was my idea because I think it is a fascinating
way to examine the case. But where credit is due,
it was actually renowned writer and television producer Greg Hadrick
who came up with the idea. Greg is the author
(01:30):
of the recently released book The Mushroom Murders. We sat
down and dissected the case from start to finish in
a way that gives you an understanding of what the
evidence was and how the case against this murderer was
presented in court. We separate fact from fiction and provide
you with a unique insight into the case. Have a listen,
(01:52):
Greg Hadrick, Welcome back to I Catchkillers.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Thank you Gary, it's a pleasure being here.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
Well, I say welcome back, and I know you've won
a lot of award in your time in the media
world and screenplays and different things. But coming on my
Catch Kills for a second time, it must be right
up there.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
I think it's a career highlight. It really is the
only right now so I can get back on. Well,
the excitement is written all over your face. But good
to see you, and I've had the pleasure of reading
another book that you've written. You've now switched seemed to
be switching from TV very much into the writing space. Yeah,
I've pivoted into authorship. It didn't start off intentionally, but
(02:33):
it's just moved that way and it's been enjoyable.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
It's been really enjoyable. Well, the book that you entertained
me with this weekend was The Mushroom Killer or the
Mushroom Murders, as the book is titled. Fascinating read. Thank you.
What is it about the Aaron Patterson case that has
captured the attention of the nation, And I'm not exaggerating
the world the world.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Yeah, looks I don't have any blinding insights other than
the more time that you know, I spent listening to
her in court when she was both giving evidence and
then being cross examined. She's fascinating because it's so unusual.
The whole case is so unusual and so rare. And
I think to find a woman who lives in the country,
(03:17):
you know, with her kids, just going about her business,
spending months planning a triple murder is so out of
the norm that no one could figure out who would
do that and what sort of person is she who
would do that, And because her character is a difficult
personality to unlock, I think it's just fascinated people for
well now months, well a lot.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
Of people have opinions on it and sort of polarized people.
I'd say more leaning to the fact that she's guilty,
But there were people saying that why would she do that?
How could she do that? It's a tragic accident. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Intention was a big issue in the case, and even
before the trial, people were saying, on the one hand,
it looked like she had done it. On the other hand,
there was no motive that anyone could really identify there.
She seemed to have no intention of doing it, And
you know, if there was no motive, can there be intention.
(04:14):
So her claim again and again that it was just
a terrible accident that she was really sorry for gained
a bit of traction.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
Yeah, and people struggle with motive. But what I found
out in my career as a homicide detective, quite often
motive is, yeah, you can't explain it, I can't exaiss.
Murdering people most times is in the irrational act, and
so you're trying to put rational thoughts into the reason
why someone would kill.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Yeah, I think a lot of people feel if they
understand the motive, they can possibly either feel more safe
themselves or make sure they're not in that position, et cetera.
But as you say that, because so few of us
are killers, we can't really get in that headspace. Things
that just make us angry make them kill.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
And you go, how does that?
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Where's that bridge?
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Well, we're going to dissect the whole whole case because
you've given the fascinating insight writing writing the book from
the perspective of a dura, the fictional duror, And I thought,
what a novel idea on the way to write the book.
I'd like to claimate that we've had the it was
your idea, but it was.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
And well it began with that, with that thought that
because there was a growing school of thought that it
might be difficult to get a conviction, because it might
be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you know
that she did intend to kill them, And so I thought, well,
whether she's as I was sort of listening to the
court case and planning the book, I thought, whether she
(05:45):
ends up being acquitted or convicted. The journey of how
a jury got to that decision with only the evidence
that was put in front of them at court. You
can't go chatting to anybody else would be a good
story in itself.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Well, you gave through reading the book and a more
in depth understanding. I have the case now. It gave
a I thought it was a very simple case to
start with, but it could have gone over way because
of that. Could have been a tragic accident, like if
she got sick from the mushrooms. This is terrible. This
poor woman. She's trying to do the right thing, inviting
(06:20):
a family or former family members over and just being charitable, and.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Then you know, and this happens, and that's right, And
that's what she was saying the whole time.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Well, when I first heard about it, and I probably
still look at things through the lens of a homicide detective,
I'm thinking, that's not too hard. I've got to look
at the case. So there was a lunch organized. Five
people turned up. One person cooked the meal, four got
critically sick from what they consumed, three of them died,
(06:52):
and the one person that invited the people there prepared
the meal. And she was fine, Now if you get
a sense, because you've written a lot of crime dramas,
so we're in the strikeforce room, setting up the whiteboard
and writing the names of the victims down, and what's happened.
There would be a lot of arrows pointing at Aaron Patterson,
(07:13):
full of them, very very quickly.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
And there were, as you know from the book, the police.
You know, she was in the frame before any of
them died. Yeah, really they were. You know, they were
obviously hoping no one would die. But you know from
the first hours that they were called, all the arrows.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
Pointed where definitely. But what it's also and in reading
the book and understanding how the trial has played out
and hearing the reports from from the media, what it's
reinforced to me how quite often cases look like a
walk up start in homicide. But to prove it beyond
reasonable doubt, and that that crucial thing, beyond reasonable doubt,
(07:54):
it's a high bar.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
It is a high bar, and but it should be
I think if you're talking about, you know, having people
of liberty for thirty odd years, it should be a
high bar. But it is a difficult part. As you say,
the original headlines five people eat a lunch, one's fine,
four critically, three die. You would think it would be
a simple case, but every step along the way the
(08:19):
defense managed to put doubt doubt. There, are you sure,
you can't say for certain that this happened, You can't
say for certain that that happened, etc. And they rack
up and.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
It's just that little bit of doubt in it. The
other thing about this case, and when we're talking about
why people are so fascinated in these particular cases, we
have I think a blind spot to women committing evil acts.
And quite often we look when in my career in policing,
a woman couldn't have done that, and if it was
(08:52):
if you flipped it, if it was reverse, if a
man had invited his ex wife's family over for a
barbecue and four of them got critically ill, people would
be going, Okay, that's a bit of a nasty human being,
But we don't really look at it when that dark
character is a female.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
I think that's true, and I think you know, in
some senses it's it is much rarer for women to
be particularly planned killers, to be premeditated is much rare,
and because it's rare that people just don't don't believe it.
The initial reaction is that that can't be right, you know,
I don't think that could happen.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Well, this country, we've got a couple of high profile
cases that play it out, and one of them Lindy Chamberlain.
To start with. We all looked at Lindy and we thought, okay,
well she's murdered murdered Zaria and that was proved to
be incorrect.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Yeah, and a lot of people judged her on how
she reacted to the camera. It didn't appear to show
the grief that you know, you expect that she should.
The everyone was going, oh, that doesn't you know, that's.
Speaker 1 (09:59):
A bit us.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
Erin was apparently grieving, you know, the first time the
cameras were on her. Yeah, and she was there, you know,
crying and thinking it was terrible, and she did's appalling
what's happened. She doesn't understand whether she learned from Lindy.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
I don't know. Well, you had Lindy, and you've had
recently in the media, the lady that was charged with
killing the foreign and she's now now been acquitted and
found found not guilty after initially being convicted. Do you
think that played a part in the way not just
(10:35):
the media approached this case, also the public approached the case.
And I dare say that the legal system approached this case,
that they got it wrong in two high profile cases,
that that might have changed the way that we all
approached this particular manner.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Yeah, I think, I think, you know, it's a sweeping statement,
but I think generally speaking, those cases were so famous
that this time there was always that hesitation. It was like, well,
we think she must have done it, but you know,
we've been wrong before. You know, can it be right
or not? And what would really convict her? And we're
not sure if And that probably fed into into the
fascination for the whole and.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
That's probably why we held back a little bit. We
did it to Lindy and Kathleen, Well we can't get
it wrong alone this time. Yeah, yeah, No, It's interesting
And I've often thought the way people react when you
hear of women committing horrendous offenses, that the public just
can't accept it. And I suppose it comes down to
when they present in a certain way, they're not that
(11:32):
sinister person. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
I think Kelly Elaine, who was a fascinated Aaron Patterson
and she was part of that Facebook similar case. Really,
a lot of people couldn't really believe that she would
do that, that a woman would do that. Yeah, and
yet the other party is going, but it seems like
she did and then and then then.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Well that is a puzzle. But look, let's balance it
out because there are some other women that have been
particularly bad. There's Catherine Mary Knight. That's a lady, a
female killer that her crime was horrendously brutal where she
killed the person she was seeing at the time, her partner,
(12:15):
skinned him and then cut his body parts up and
was preparing a meal. It's just shocking, and you're right,
you can't imagine, Yeah, a woman doing that, And I
think that's that's where we look at it going. Someone
couldn't do that, but that's that's that's what happened. Though.
We had the detective that investigated that matter on the
(12:39):
podcast and walked in and saw the skin hanging there, like.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
I actually saw it.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Yeah, just horrendous crime. There was another interesting case and
just checking the notes here, but it was Natasha Darcy,
widow of a Walker Walcher. I know that, Okay, Well
that was a situation where she poisoned her partner at
the time, and there was a previous attempt where she
tried to poison her former husband, but she wasn't successful
(13:07):
there and she ended up poisoning her second partner. So
when was this This is I would be probably ten
years ago, ten years ago. And the twist in that.
And you've been a crime writer, and I know some
of the times when I've spoken to you, when you've
been writing, you're thinking people won't believe that. But when
(13:27):
Natasha poisoned her current partner, the ambulance officer responding was
her former husband. Oh it was in a small country town.
These things happened. But anyway, we're sort of going off track.
But I think just getting a sense of this whole
Whites captured the attention of so many people, Aaron Patterson's case.
(13:53):
It is fascinating why it has and then it just
ballooned globally. How would you describe her as a person?
Speaker 2 (14:03):
Very difficult to get to know, because she tends to,
as far as I could tell listening to her say
what she feels people want to hear, or what will
put her at the center of attention, or what will
do the best for her. So there's a there's a
sort of narcissistic quality there, I suppose. I mean, I
don't have a psychology degree, but that is how she
came across as very much that you know, she's the
(14:26):
center of her world and it was annoying that other
people would be doing this to her. There was a
sense of affront that this could be happening to someone
like her when she should be starring in her own life.
That that's sort of how she came across.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Well, the images of the captured by the media, and
they're sometimes taken out of context, but there seemed to
be she was indignant about almost attention on her. What
are you doing? Why you wasting your time? Is there
anything that came out in the trial or anything that
you're aware of that sort of a indicator that she
might be capable of these horrendous murders.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
There's no when you track through her history, the only
the only things that came out in court were the
number of times that she walked out of the relationship
with Simon, And although she said at other time that
you know, they broke up or he left me, nearly
every time the way I was described in court, she
(15:29):
was the one who left him, she walked out of
the house, she took the kids with her, et cetera. So,
and you know, there's many relationships where I suppose that's
the case. But I think often often, the only slight
insight that I was thinking about with all of those
was when things weren't going her way, she would act.
(15:50):
Rather than sort of argue through or just be silent
or you know, just sort of get through the mood,
et cetera, she would act. And and that's the only
clue that I think you got to it. It was
in the way she handled that relationship, was that when
things weren't going her way, she did something about it.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
That's interesting. Like, I'm obviously not the psychologist either, but
if you're looking at motives or the actions type of thing,
she's going to take control. She's not happy with something,
she's going to change it. She's going to change it.
And certainly, committing the offense she did, she changed it
in a big way. Okay, when you first heard the case,
(16:33):
before you decided you're going to be writing the book
about it, what were your initial thoughts.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
My initial thought actually was it made more sense if
it was a terrible accident than a human being would
spend months planning this because from the very beginning you thought, well,
if she's done it, she had to go out and
pick death cap mushrooms, and you know the mushroom season
was months before, etc. And so there was a whole
(17:01):
planning behind it. And I don't know when you just
looked at the first time, you thought, is that even
possible that she could do that?
Speaker 1 (17:08):
So at the very beginning, I.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Was more in the in the don't leap to well
we say the Lindy Chamber, I think, don't leap to guilty.
The simpler explanation is somehow it's a terrible accident.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
You touched on there that the mushrooms, and I only
found that out in research prepping for this, But deaf
cap mushrooms are seasonal, so when the murders occurred, she
would have had to put the plan in in months
and months before.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Yeah, three months before.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
You're laughing, laugh, But sometimes you've got to laugh when
you think, well, how does someone plan this? Yeah, that
far in advance. So the preparation you've done for the book,
you had access to. You were listening to the trials.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
People who was approved through the Supreme Court of Victoria
Media Division to have the audio stream link. You know,
it's open justice.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
So I was.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Listening every day to the trial and then getting the
copies of the transcript at the end of that day,
so I had I had access to everything that was
publicly presented in courts. Evidence, all right, So the thorough,
very thorough.
Speaker 1 (18:26):
Yes, the partner simon or husband, well, he just seemed
like a straight normal guy. You know.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
He gave his evidence, you know, in a very calm way.
He was very direct about what he could remember and
what he couldn't remember. He talked less emotionally about their relationship,
just stuck to the facts and all of that. So
all as a because I was always thinking from a
potential jurors point of view, because that's how it's going to.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
Do the book.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
There wasn't a great door into his soul. He just
seemed like, you know, a normal, decent fellow. Loved these kids.
They both loved their kids.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Describing the community that they were living in the family,
I'm just trying to get a sense of it, like
a picture at rural Victoria an hour or so.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
About an hour hour to an hour and a half
out of out of Melbourney so it's a little like
being in the Southern Highlands. Really it's Crumba is a
small town, so's Lee and Gatha Outroms even smaller. But
they they all are close knit little communities, each of
those little townships, and you know most people know most
(19:37):
people there, and you know they would devout church goes.
The Patterson family. Ian As is well known as pastor
at Crumba Church. They mixed with the school community. We
can't say what school, but they they had a normal suburban,
middle class Australian lifestyle.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
Yeah. And the separation, you said, there's been a couple
of times when they're separated in the lead up to
the murder. What was the state of the relationship like
it at that point.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
Well, it had reached it's between Simon and Aaron. It
had reached its nadia, which pretty much everyone agreed when
they gave evidence, you know, not just Simon but also
Simon's brothers and sister that the worst point was December
twenty twenty two, which was when the argument over child support. Essentially,
(20:31):
Simon put on his tax return that he was single,
that he was separated, and that led to a situation
where Aaron could claim family tax breaks. But because of that,
the government child support system got involved, and various government
processes meant that Simon's support for the children was overseen
(20:52):
by the government.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Organization okay, And I got the sense that that was
a significant and that was a thing from Eron that
was really that saying it's over like, it's okay, We're
not not a trial separation there now we're making.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
I hadn't actually lived in the same house since twenty fifteen,
so it came seven years after that. But they had
been on holidays together, they'd shared a lot of co
parenting together. But that was the point at which you know,
her famous text messages saying things like you know, Fuckerman,
you know this family. All that sort of stuff came
about because of that situation, and that was the tipping point.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
All that was a.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Tipping point to all of it was that, yes, and
the way in her mind it wasn't just about the money,
because he wasn't paying doctor's bills and he wasn't paying
school fees because the government had told him not to.
She was more incensed at at his behavior. Now, it
was hard at the trial to get a strong sense
(21:55):
of what that behavior necessarily was, but she was really
annoyed about it. That was the point at which it
seemed like being able to sort of at least coperent
with Simon, even if they couldn't co Habit dissolved and
there was really not much relationship at all between Simon
and Aaron after that point, although she did try to
stay in close touch with Donn and with Gail.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
Yeah, tell us about the victims, because I think one
thing that's been lost in the fascination with this case
is that three people have lost their lives, and has
had lucky to survive and lost his wife, and so
there's been a lot of tragedy, huge tragedy associated associated
with this well with her actions, as the court have
(22:39):
found out. So you've got don Patterson and Gail Patterson,
her in laws, or Simon's parents. What were they like
as people?
Speaker 2 (22:49):
As far as I can tell, The way that the
various siblings described them in court is they were typical, loving,
caring grandparents parents to Simon. But in particular the relationship
with Simon and Eron's kids and with the kids of
the other siblings was very strong. I was very caring,
you know, he was tutoring the son in maths and
(23:12):
helping him get through school, building backyard rockets with him
and you know, fun stuff, cool stuff like that. Gail.
They often would have the kids over at their place.
Gail was very concerned about Aaron's health and there's a
string of text messages where she's tried to offer her
support and prayers, et cetera for the various ailments that
(23:33):
Aaron said she had. So how they came across to
us in court, who never knew them personally, was kind,
loving people.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
That seems to be the narrative that's been portrayed about them, and.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
There's nothing to suggest anything but that.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
And they seem like the perfect in laws in the
situation of separation. They were still staying in contact with
absolute eron and not making life difficult and just been.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Constantly asking about the kids and helping where they could.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Yeah, lovely people.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
I say that because it all adds up to lovely
people that she decided to kill. Then you've got Heather
Wilkinson and Ierne Wilkinson. Now Heather was Gail's sister. Yeah,
what what was a relationship they had, Well, they had.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
It was more distant like Don and Gail. You could
track through phone calls and text messages, et cetera. Quite
a relationship. They were the kid's grandparents, et cetera. Ian
and Heather were part of an extended family that Aaron
didn't appear to have all that much to do with.
They were friendly, They saw each other at church every
(24:45):
second or once a month or whatever, once a fortnite.
But as it was said at court, that was the
first time that she'd ever actually invited Ian and Heather,
you know, to a lunch right at her place. They'd
met at Christmas party and you know, big family celebrations
for birthdays, et cetera, but a specific why don't we
come and have lunch? That was the first time.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
My mind's processing it, like you're breaking it down, and
sometimes when you think about it and the why even
include those people in there, like what's the connection? What
are you trying to achieve?
Speaker 2 (25:20):
And and and you know, it's a dangerous game trying
to get inside Aaron Patterson's head. But all that was
said again, as far as I can remember, that came
out in the evidence at court was that when she'd
had a lunch, which the prosecution sort of put as
almost like a trial run about a month before, four
or five weeks before, which was shepherds bired, no mushrooms involved.
(25:42):
And at that lunch which the kids were there and
Dine and Gail and Aaron and Simon wasn't and Gail
had said that Heather would love the garden, right because
obviously I presume you know, Heather was a keen gardener.
Aaron's block was two or three acres something alean gather,
and she landscaped a lot of it and it had
(26:04):
mulched and new plants, et cetera. So it was a
night lovely looking garden, and Gail had mentioned that it
was one that Heather would really appreciate seeing, and it
seems as though that's why they were invited. There was
no other real reason. So that when at church on
the sixteenth of July, when when Aaron invited Don and
(26:26):
Gail to lunch, it appears though she Gail was talking
to Heather and she approached both of them and said
something like no one can move with exact words, but perfectly, oh,
just the people I wanted to see. The lunch was
for Don and Gail, but you know, Heather was there
with her, and Gail had previously said that she'd loved
the garden, so why don't you anything come along as well?
Speaker 1 (26:46):
Right, that seems to be it. Well, look there is
no explanation like it's you can speculate and that's yeah.
I suppose what jurors are doing too when they're looking
at these cases. It's Xantha And we'll talk in more
detail of the trial in the second part. But okay,
so you've got this situation. You're painting the picture a normal,
(27:08):
average family. That's and I think quite often the public
get interested in in a situation that happens because that
could be anyone's family, anyone.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
There's no criminality here at all. It's just an average,
middle class Australian family.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
Okay, so they've been invited around for lunch. Now there
was a pretense that Aaron had said that she wanted
to speak to them about some upcoming health issues. What
was that all about?
Speaker 2 (27:36):
Well, there was there was a lot of debate and
argument at the trial exactly about what it was about.
Initially when she was first interviewed by police. Actually, I
think Erin just said she wanted to stay close with
the family, but she had the text exchanges with Gail
in the in the couple of weeks before, she was
saying that she had a lump on her elbow and
(27:56):
that she needed to have an MRI on that, and
then she'd get the results of that back. And they
go backwards and forward to how are you have you
got the results? You know you're okay, And in the
text messages, err And says something like, oh, it's a
lot to process, but you know, hopefully, you know, I
will find a time where I can talk.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
It through with you.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
And then when they're invited to lunch, almost she made
it sound almost as a secondary motive, and she was
watering it down in court a little bit, but clearly
she felt that she wanted to do something at lunch
rather than just house things. So at lunch, she said,
and this comes mostly from Ian, who was very clear
in the witness box that she said to them at
(28:38):
the end of the lunch that she'd been diagnosed with cancer,
and part of her fear and the reason why the
kids weren't there at lunch was she was wanting to
talk about how she should break it to the kids
and whether she and Simon should do it together or
whether it should you just be her or should you
try and not tell the kids and just go through treatment,
et cetera. And they were very worried about her, and
Don was saying, I think, you know, should be up
(29:00):
front and be truthful with the kids, or good advice
Ian if had a prayer for it, that she should
make wise decisions, et cetera. As it was found out later,
there was never a diagnosis, There was never a needle biopously,
there was never an MRI, and she's never been diagnosed
with cancer. It was all a complete lie.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
What was the purpose of that, you think too? Well?
Speaker 2 (29:25):
Again in court she said she was hiding the fact
that she was really wanting to she had weight issues,
and yes she did lie about having cancer, but she
was going to have gastric bypass surgery. But in the
end my dura and I don't quite believe that either
because the facility that she had appointment.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
With on that when you say myn dura and so
I'm just getting getting a sense of how you wrote
the book, that you were really putting yourself in there,
going Okay, this is what's been presented. What was your
character like mine?
Speaker 2 (29:58):
Yeah, that so that the narrator in the book doesn't
necessarily follow exactly what I was thinking. Yes, you know,
they have their own opinions in their own background and
their own history, et cetera. But the narrator certainly doesn't
believe the gastric bypass story, which brings you back to
what was the point?
Speaker 1 (30:16):
What was the point? What was the point of it.
Speaker 2 (30:19):
All? And this is speculation again, not a psychologist. It
made her the center of attention, and it may had
everyone gave her sympathy. Yes, so it's sort of manipulating
people's feelings toward her in a way that she felt
would bond her again with the family and yet put
her at.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
The center of the story. That's that's the best I
can do. Well, I what you and your dur durham
mate have come up with. My reading of it, taking
in all the information I've got, and again it's any speculation.
It felt like to me a woman that was really
alone and was worried about losing the family like that was.
(31:02):
She might have got on with them, she might have
fought with them or whatever, but she was fearful of
being alone. And then that fear somehow turned into resentment
and then anger and then along those lines. To me,
there's not much talk with the other community or friendships
that she had was very much family orientated.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
Yes, it did feel like she was very family oriented
because remember she wasn't working, so it's not as though
she had a workspace with work colleagues or anything like that.
She had applied to do a course in nursing at
the beginning of twenty twenty three but then deferred it,
so other than dropping the kids at school or the
school bus stop, there was nothing else.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
Yes, so a fixation of that she's going to lose
the only family has she got the family like her
family separate.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
I believe she has a sister, very I think you
might even mentioned a couple of times in court. Her
father died in two thousand, but very few details about that. Yeah,
her mother died in twenty nineteen. There's a suggestion that
she had breast cancer and might have died of breast cancer,
(32:13):
but that's not quite quite clear. So she'd lost both
her parents didn't seem to have as far as you
can tell from the what's presented at court, didn't seem
to have any particular relationship with her sister. So her
only family was the Patterson family.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
And that's what appears that that was growing further and
further apart. And I suppose as the children get older too,
there's less reasons to stay in contact and that could
come into play. You said she wasn't working. Was it
one stage she was an air traffic controller?
Speaker 2 (32:44):
She was, but that was before she met Simon, So
you've got to go back to two thousand and two,
two thousand and one, two thousand and two, and yeah,
she was in air traffic controller for a couple of years.
And again just looking at what's presented at court, they
don't say much about that other than she was an
air traffic control Simon said she was working at Tullamarine.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
Now that's a hell of a chot. That's a lot
of responsibility and decisive action. You said she was a
lady of actions, so they got to be decisive.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
Yeah, that role that very and you know, very ordered,
very clinical, very logical.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
Psychologically sound too. I would imagine that comes into play
any any talk or understanding of a previous relationship she
had before Simon. Anything, Nothing out the background background there,
there's nothing at all. The evidence presented at trial really
starts with air traffic control and then she met when
she left that she started working at Monash Council. Actually
(33:40):
she was with the RSPCA and seconded to Monash Council.
That's where she met Simon and that's really where the
evidence at court. What she's doing at the RSPCA, you know, No, I.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
Don't, Actually she was.
Speaker 1 (33:52):
She was.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
She was a liaison officer for the r s p
C a with Monash Council.
Speaker 1 (33:59):
What that entailed. We never really got into the detail
thinking empathy and all sorts of things RSPC. But yeah,
it's just strange in so many ways. Can you describe
to us now the lunch, what took place? Just what
we know about the lunch and in part two will
break down the information and how it played out in
the trial. But what's the overview of the lunch?
Speaker 2 (34:20):
The overview is Don and Gale picked up In and
Heather from outside their housep drove. I think it's only
about fifteen twenty minutes or so from Crumbra to liam Gatta.
They pulled up, Aaron was actually finishing getting the lunch ready,
so they chatted for a little bit in the kitchen.
They went outside to the backyard or just on the
(34:41):
back porch and had a little look at the garden
and said some nice things about that. They came back
in Heather and Gale asked Aaron whether she needed Oh,
they actually they went to the pantry. That was an
interesting little side thing because Heather, I think, was planning
to renovate her kitchen, so she was looking at people's
pantries and figuring out different design things, etc. And Erin
(35:04):
had a big walk in pantry and she just went, oh,
can overlook and headed toward it, thinking well, no one's
going to say no, you can't look in my pantry,
and Eron did actually hesitate and tense up a little bit,
and she just said it was because it was all messy.
But Ian made a point of that in his evidence,
just saying because he was going to go over and
(35:24):
have a look at the pantry too, and then thought, oh,
something's a bit the way she overreacted to that. Then
they asked if she needed help plating up, and she
said no, there's lots of little things about, you know,
where the plates were and all that sort of stuff,
But essentially she put beef Wellington on every plate, with
some mashed potato and some beans. Gail took two of
(35:47):
the plates and these were the ones that he In
described as the four gray plates Heather took to Gail
took too. They took them over to the table, and
Aaron carried her own over there, which Ian claimed was
like an orange tan color. And clearly the jury and
the judge agreed with Ian's Testamony was very very clear
and very strong about so there were four gray plates.
(36:12):
Hers is on a separate orange tan, et cetera. They
sat down, he said grace, which I thought was an
ironic moment of all things. Yeah, thank you for this food,
my lord. They started eating. No one can remember much
about what was said at the lunch itself. They just say,
(36:34):
you know, there was a bit about how it was
apparently very nice, it was very yummy meal. Really, you
know that. They all remember that donate his beef Wellington,
and Gayl could only get through a round about half
of hers, and so he ate the other half of hers.
Ian and Heather. Ian says, both he and Heather ate
(36:58):
all of their beef Willington, but it was big. They
were sort of full after lunch.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
They didn't have And because this goes into the planning
of the murder, so the beef Wellington pie is a
size of an average pie. Is that what?
Speaker 2 (37:13):
That's what that's the assumption, Yeah, because which is not
a normal beef Wellington.
Speaker 1 (37:18):
But that if you made the big one where it
could be cut out up and everyone got sick, you'd
be we wouldn't be having this conversation. That would be
a tragic accident. It would be hard to convict. But
the fact that they've made posially. I'm not not a psychologist,
but I'm not a very good chef, but I would
imagine making five pies is more difficult than making one larger.
Speaker 2 (37:41):
But I would think, and I actually have made a
beef Wellington since okay, we've got an expert, I thought
I should have a crack at this. Yea, And yeah,
it would have been much fiddler. But then she had
to do it, yeah, to make five individual ones. In
her evidence, Aaron says that she Woolies didn't sell one
big beef I which is what you normally would wrap
(38:01):
in mushrooms and pursuto and then pastry. All well, he
is sold with the individual life at stakes and that's
why she made them individually, as doctor Rodgers and the
prosecution said in the trial, and as you know, a
quick Google will show you the lion. Gatha Butcher is
right next door to Woollies. Like you if you wanted
to buy an eye filler. Yeah, you only had to
walk twenty meters. That's where the story starts, where you
(38:24):
go break break down. It starts to break down there.
Speaker 1 (38:27):
Yeah. Well, those are all the things that come out
in the trial, but the ones that the prosecution push
and then the defense will come back with something else.
They've had their they've had their meal. Yeah, there was
no blap, was there. I suppose is the only one
we could really count on who survived. And he was
in the camera for a time after eight years.
Speaker 2 (38:47):
And he was but he just remembers it as just
just normal domestic chit chat. There's a feeling that a
bit of politics got discussed. And you have to remember
the the Yes vote de Parliament. It was going on
the same time.
Speaker 1 (39:01):
Yeah, but it was.
Speaker 2 (39:02):
It was when they had finished beef Wellington's, the main cause.
Gail had brought a cake and Heather had brought a
fruit platter. Not much of that was eaten because the
beef Wellington's were very filling. And that's that's when Aaron
said that she wanted to talk to them about the
cancer diagnosis, okay, which was bullshit, bullshit, But she played
(39:24):
played that garden and so as people say, now I'm
not sure if I'm jumping ahead of the question, but
she would have known what they were eating through that
entire lunch. So it's staggering.
Speaker 1 (39:39):
Really. Well, you look at murder and that can be
a crime of passion, that can be all sorts of
reasons for a murder, but the planning that goes into
that and then victims that honest approaches. She's got no
reason to hate these people. But yeah, no one could
find any You could hate your ex partner or whatever,
but whether that you go to the ex stream of
(40:00):
killing the person, but no animosity with these people. They
showed her only love, respect and kindness. That's the sense.
And the fact that they were even buying into your
poor thing. You might be suffering from cancer, and I
would imagine they said all the right things there.
Speaker 2 (40:18):
They did, yeah, and prayed for her, so you know,
having fed them a meal that would kill them, she
then got them to pray for her. Tell us it's astonishing.
Speaker 1 (40:29):
Simon wasn't there, but he was. Simon was not there.
He was invited he was.
Speaker 2 (40:35):
He declined the invitation with the text on the Friday
afternoon or Friday evening, just saying he felt uncomfortable going,
And in the court and minerrator in the book is
slightly annoyed because no one ever asks what was he
uncomfortable about? Right, he just says he was uncomfortable. It's
(40:55):
not till.
Speaker 1 (40:56):
After the trial, and that he could explain.
Speaker 2 (40:59):
He could explain he was uncomfortable. He'd said a very
similar with the previous lunch on the twenty fourth of June,
the Shepherd's Pie lunch. Same thing, he responded, saying, no,
I don't think he did. Say to her, if you
want to discuss how we should talk to the kids
about any medical issue you might have, or you want
to talk about your medical issues with me, give me
a call. Very happy to keep talking with her and
(41:19):
keep coparenting the kids. Just didn't want to sit down
and eat anything she'd cooked.
Speaker 1 (41:24):
That's telling, But the jury weren't aware of the details
other than he declined to go to lunch.
Speaker 2 (41:33):
Yeah, they were given no further details on why that
might be the case.
Speaker 1 (41:37):
Okay, what were the after effects of the meal? So everyone,
assuming you've described that they've sat down, had a normal
lunch discussing what they've discussed. They've left. I'm sure they
thanked Aaron.
Speaker 2 (41:52):
And they did. And Simon drops the kids back, the
son and his mate and the daughter actually stays with
and they go back and have some father daughter time.
The boys come in and that's when Don and Gale
and Ian and Heather head back home. And Ian had
some meetings for because he was going to deliver the service.
Speaker 1 (42:13):
The next day.
Speaker 2 (42:14):
So they've by three o'clock they've left, and in court
all Erin said was, well, she did a bit tiding up,
a bit of cleaning, et cetera. The kid, the boys
went in and played computer games in the TV computer
room until around about you know, six six thirty or so,
and then she needed to figure out when the son's
mate needed to go back home. And while this is
(42:37):
going on, Heather as Donegale head back to their home.
They have a conversation with they think with the daughter
who just course they had to go, and there's mention
of the fact that Aaron's had a cancer diagnosis.
Speaker 1 (42:52):
Okay, so that's something that can be relied upon. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
that's it's not just Ian saying that, Yeah, that corroborates,
and they said that to Simon the following morning as well.
They Don and Galeni and Heather are fine till around
about midnight. Hard to put no one notes at the
(43:15):
exact time, but call it sometime around about eleven eleven
thirty in midnight, have ust well, and pretty much within
an hour all four of them start having severe diarrhea
and vomiting. And so all of that would be around
about eleven twelve hours after they've digested the yeah, after
(43:37):
the beef Wellington's, and that becomes significant because most viral
and bacterial gastrobugs, you start feeling sick two three four
hours later. One of the things that first made the
toxicologists suspect and wonder whether it could be death cap
mushrooms was that delay. Okay, rare, it's rare, and it's specific,
(44:03):
like deathcat mushrooms are known to take that long.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
They can't you can't get early symptoms. It just doesn't
get through the liver and the bile and the blow
in that time. So that that was a not conclusive,
but it was a strong indicator given the fact that
they'd eaten a beef Wellington with mushrooms in it, and
they had eleven to twelve hours delayed presentation.
Speaker 1 (44:24):
Reasonable.
Speaker 2 (44:25):
Yeah, it was a reasonable hypothesis. Pretty quickly, what happened
Erin's Erin's journey through that Saturday evening, we largely have
to take Erin's word for it, which is dicey to
say the least. I been very kind, yea.
Speaker 1 (44:42):
So she.
Speaker 2 (44:44):
Drops her son's mate home about seven ish. She says
to Simon the next day that she start and she
says to the child protection worker two or three days
later that she started having a diarrhea. And she never
claimed to wine. She said she had nausea and diary
and that she was starting to feel that around about
(45:05):
seven o'clock. And it was one of the small things
that became an issue because if she had eaten the
same meal as Don and Galea and the and Heather,
she should not have would not have got those symptoms
so early, so early.
Speaker 1 (45:21):
Yeah, And that's those little lies that she told and.
Speaker 2 (45:26):
Trying to try to say I'm the same as them,
I'm the same as them, fit the story, yeah, but
in fact it made the story harder for her for her.
Speaker 1 (45:36):
Once she she realized what happened. Eventually they got admitted
to hospital.
Speaker 2 (45:42):
They did. The following morning, Don calls an ambulance and
he and Gala taken straight to Crumborough Hospital.
Speaker 1 (45:50):
And why are we talking in terms of a hospital
there and the like?
Speaker 2 (45:54):
Literally there are two beds in the You're.
Speaker 1 (45:56):
Lucky to have a doctor. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (45:59):
Yeah, So the reason why Ian and Heather ended up
at Liam Gather Hospital was because Don and go were
already in the two beds in Crumber.
Speaker 1 (46:06):
So it was that capacity.
Speaker 2 (46:07):
Yeah, Simon picks up the Inn and Heather and drives them, well,
he drove them to Crumber and they said, sorry, we're
full with your parents. And so he was driving in
and Heather to Lian Gather and that it's during that
phase when Heather's saying to Simon it puzzles her why
Aaron had a separate plate. She said, we all had
the same plates. I don't think she Simon doesn't say
(46:30):
she actually said gray plates. That's very much what Ian's
memory is, but he's very strong on that. But Heather
did say to Simon, we all had the same plates,
and she had.
Speaker 1 (46:40):
A different had a different plate.
Speaker 2 (46:41):
Yeah, why would that be? And she never goes that
extra step. But clearly she's thinking it's weird.
Speaker 1 (46:48):
Okay, is just picking up that's stranger having dinner party
and yeah six six plates even tho if you we
have lost a few, you can.
Speaker 2 (46:58):
So they Yeah, so they start It looks like they've
got a severe case of normal viral gastro and so are.
Speaker 1 (47:04):
They is a thought process you think going through their mind.
They wouldn't. They wouldn't be thinking we've been murdered at
this stage. Yeah, maybe unhygienic. The way she prepared the meal,
or what she feather said was the meat.
Speaker 2 (47:20):
You're more likely to think the meat. In fact, doctor
Chris Webster at lean Gatha, his initial thought was it's
probably off meat. Yeah, your mind doesn't go straight to
deathcat mushrooms. Yeah, And that's what they were thinking.
Speaker 1 (47:32):
And so they.
Speaker 2 (47:33):
Were doing a lot of the standard treatments that you
would for people who are becoming dehydrated because they've had
so much diarrhea and so much vomiting. So they have
saline drips and things like that to keep fluid up,
et cetera. And that goes on through Sunday, Sunday afternoon.
It's Sunday afternoon. Having done all that a normal gastro bug,
(47:55):
you'd start to settle down down in particular because he
had one and a half, Wellington just kept getting worse.
The diary got worse, the vomiting got worse, and none
of the normal simple things you do for ordinary gastra
were having any effect. And they didn't have the sophisticated
tests needed at Little Corumbra Hospital, so they immediately said,
(48:18):
well they need to go to a higher tier hospital.
So they went to They put them in a ambulance
and took them to Dandenol Hospital on Sunday night, and
that's where Beth Morgan was the doctor in charge of
them there, and Ian and Heather at this stage are
still at leon Gatha, but following a similar trajectory like
(48:39):
just not in the illness, if anything worse, they weren't.
Don was the one who was who was really getting
worse faster at that point in time, and it was
his blood tests, the more sophisticated blood test that Dandenol
Hospital could do that started ticularly getting Beth Morgan worried
(49:02):
because they showed what's called an elevated lactate. And this
is me not being a doctor, but just reading the evidence,
they put a trial, and it was the nature that
elevated lactate that indicated to her that there was significant
liver damage happening. And this, this is not normal, This
is not your average gastro and when it's starting the damage,
(49:22):
we're we're starting to damage the liver. And are few
other medico things around that which I can't quite remember,
but that was the significant one. And she later that
evening she gets on to Mark Douglas, the toxicologist. Meanwhile,
while she's scratching her head about an elevated lactate, Aaron
(49:42):
is feeding, says and the kids sort of say, this too,
is feeding the leftovers to her kids. That's happening at
the same time. And I feel and know from reading
the book that I my Duror. That's where she bumps
the most that if Aaron's claim that she's had explosive
(50:03):
diarrhea through Saturday night, she's aware. I guess they're all
in trying to back away from that, but the evidence
is pretty strong that she knew that Don and Gai
were in hospital. So you know that your lunch has
made you sick, You're not going to dish it up
to your kids unless you know it's uncontaminated. Otherwise I
(50:23):
don't think any just it doesn't just go against parenting,
it goes against an instinctive human reaction to feeling sick
after eating something. So that was very odd and I
think one of the things that really undid erin So,
while the kids are having a great piece of steak
from leftover from Saturday lunch, Beth is talking to Mark
(50:45):
Douglash's toxicologist at Dandenong Hospital. And that's when the short
simple version that the medical version is much much more
detailed and complex. The short simple version is they put
together the live damage coming from being noticed by the
high lactate level together with the long twelve hour separation
(51:07):
between eating the lunch and actually having sudden symptoms and
serious symptoms. And that's when Mark thinks, well, one explanation
for this is death cap mushrooms.
Speaker 1 (51:18):
Now his.
Speaker 2 (51:20):
Boss, toxicology boss at danden On effectively says, yes, it
could be, but it still could be many other things.
We don't quite know. Where we sitting here now can
play hindsight at that point in time.
Speaker 1 (51:33):
There could be other thing.
Speaker 2 (51:34):
There could be half a dozen other things. But at
that point they knew that death caps was on the
table as a possibility. And Beth Morgan at seven o'clock
on the Monday morning, she knows that he and the
other two hunch Gercine and Heather a lean Gath hospital
and she calls Chris Webster lean Gatha and says, we've
(51:56):
got a deep suspicion that this it was the mushrooms
in this meal, and it was death capoms that have
created the problem here. And again no one's doctors too
cautious to say beyond doubt, but it was heavily suspected.
Speaker 1 (52:12):
And that adds a whole nother layer of concern because
you did these mushrooms come from?
Speaker 2 (52:17):
Where did they come from? Is there going to be
an outbreak of death cap poison through Melbourne?
Speaker 1 (52:22):
Were they sold in the local supermarket? There's someone there.
Speaker 2 (52:26):
So their main fear wasn't oh has people been murdered?
It was public health. He was, oh, my god, like
you know, we've got to stop this from becoming a
public health issue. And so they were worried about Aaron
because they thought that she could will be at home
with the same symptomces violently ill. So when Aaron arrives
(52:48):
at Leanngath the hospital around about it five past eight
on the Monday morning. Chris words just basically going in it.
Thank God, we're wondering where you are.
Speaker 1 (52:57):
You stay here.
Speaker 2 (52:58):
We suspect that your other lunch guests are they're very unwell.
Exactly what was said here. Lots of people remember slightly
different versions of those conversations as they do as they
do memory. And you know, doctors have to be careful
of Gee, if I say I said that, maybe I've
broken patient confidentiality. On the other hand, he was trying
to save lives and trying to identify where the mushrooms
(53:22):
came from in case it became a public health issue,
so he says, and she tells him that the kids
hate the leftover, So he's saying, you've got to get
the kids here. Now, you've got to stay here. Now,
we've got to make sure that you don't end up
as seriously well because Ian and here that at that
time in the footage you see because you can find
it online now where she lets herself she walks out
(53:45):
against medical advice because her reaction to being told you
could die unless you stay here and we run immediate
test was I want to go home, So.
Speaker 1 (53:54):
I'm not going to help anyone get away of murder.
But these are not the things that help you get
away of murder. But when you see that vision on mine,
if you find it, the ambulance in the background is
the one that's going to be taking in Heather to
Dandenol hospital, right because they're getting worse and errands, and
Aaron's walking out to go and make sure the dog's fed.
And you know, the daughter's got ballet organized, and she's
(54:18):
already fed the leftovers to the kids kids, and she's
just claiming you don't have to check them because I
scraped the mushrooms off.
Speaker 2 (54:26):
And the doctor's going, well, you don't know if you've
got everything. It only takes a minuscule amount. And if
you're a parent, and you were this was a terrible accident,
it's hard not to think your first reaction on being
told this would be, God, I'm going to call the
school and get them in here and get them checked.
Speaker 1 (54:45):
YEA, surely, And she is this when the this is
where she lost me like I had the benefit of
the doubt at the moment. And this is not from
the trial transcripts. This is from when it was reported
in the media. I bought the mush rooms from I
don't know, there was an Asian food store. Yeah, and
(55:05):
to me that was a gotcha moment in my mind.
I thought, Okay, well there's no if there was any doubt,
But that's what she was telling the medical staff and health.
Speaker 2 (55:15):
Yeah, from the very beginning, she was surprised. The prosecution
team make a point, and I think they're right, particularly
now we know so much more about those first three
attempted burdens. What shocked there in the most was how
fast the medical team knew got onto it that it
was deathcap mushrooms with the problem. And yes, from the
very beginning she's sang, but it was button mushrooms from Woolies,
(55:38):
sliced button mushrooms and dried mushrooms from an Asian grosser
in Oakley or Mount Waverley. And then she thinks could
have been Glen Waverley. And there's another suburb. There's four
of them that she mentions, and these were all the
suburbs around the unit that the kids and she stayed
(56:01):
at during the school holitay. She had a vague idea
of the area. She had a vague idea of the area.
She knew there are a lot of Asian grosses there,
but could not remember anything.
Speaker 1 (56:12):
There was some selective memory because she could remember the package,
could the packaging, but couldn't remember the shore.
Speaker 2 (56:19):
Yeah, couldn't describe the shop at all, but could describe
the packaging, which was clear. It wasn't didn't have a commercial.
Speaker 1 (56:26):
Brand name on it.
Speaker 2 (56:27):
It had a label and maybe it used by date
or whatever, and it said something like wild forest mushrooms
or she was a bit vague, but something like that.
Speaker 1 (56:36):
Yeah. Lied with enough ring of truth, enough ring a truth,
but hard to investigate, groborate one way of the other.
Speaker 2 (56:42):
Yeah, and they never could.
Speaker 1 (56:43):
When did the police get know the five of these
people that turned up?
Speaker 2 (56:48):
This was mon so Mondays, the thirty first, So I
think it's the Tuesday, Yeah, the first. So by now
Ian and Heather are at danden On Hospital in care Don,
and Gale have gone to the Austin which is the
top it's the liver transplant hospital in Melbourne and I
(57:09):
think I'd have to go back and double check, but
I think it's that first, that Tuesday. The first is
when it's called the Basque cost Criminal unit in rural Victoria.
They call Homicide at VIC Bolt headquarters in Spence Street
and say, look, we've got four people in intensive care
(57:31):
and one who doesn't want to come and be treated.
Speaker 1 (57:36):
And I keep laughing and I shouldn't, I really shouldn't.
Speaker 2 (57:39):
And in the end Erin did go to Monash Hospital
for a day. She had low potassium. They gave us
some supplements overnight to bring a potassium level up. They
had lots of evidence at the trial to suggest that
she had some form of small amount of diarrhea, but
who knows, as could have taken a laxative whatever, no
(58:01):
liver damage whatsoever. And she was she was released on
that Tuesday. So's she's being driven home with the kids
by the childcare worker while Don and Gail are in
the Austin at the top transplant Hospital Melbourne in and
here they are about to get there, and that's when
(58:23):
Homicide get called and say you might want to keep
this on your radar.
Speaker 1 (58:27):
Okay, well, thousand questions, but that's what we're going to
delve into in the In the next part, we might
take a break now and then we're going to look
at the police investigation and the trial and some of
the things that came out in the trial that the
defense tried to rebut and some of the overwhelming evidence
(58:48):
and work out why you're dura. Mate, decided that we've
got a killer here.
Speaker 2 (58:56):
Yeah, okay, okay.
Speaker 1 (58:57):
Back Shortly the back net dis
The public has had a long held fascination with detectives
detective sy aside of life. The average person has 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 talked 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.
(00:47):
Welcome to another episode of I Catch Killers. Aaron Patterson
caught the attention of the entire country when she murdered
her family members by feeding them a meal laced with
lethal mushrooms. Recently, Patterson was said to life in prison
after being convicted of three counts of murder and one
count of attempt murder. And today we're going to examine
(01:08):
the case in great detail from a slightly different perspective.
We're going to look at the case through the eyes
of a fictional duror. Now, I'd like to say this
was my idea because I think it is a fascinating
way to examine the case. But where credit is due,
it was actually renowned writer and television producer Greg Hadrick
who came up with the idea. Greg is the author
(01:30):
of the recently released book The Mushroom Murders. We sat
down and dissected the case from start to finish in
a way that gives you an understanding of what the
evidence was and how the case against this murderer was
presented in court. We separate fact from fiction and provide
you with a unique insight into the case. Have a listen,
(01:52):
Greg Hadrick, Welcome back to I Catchkillers.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Thank you Gary, it's a pleasure being here.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
Well, I say welcome back, and I know you've won
a lot of award in your time in the media
world and screenplays and different things. But coming on my
Catch Kills for a second time, it must be right
up there.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
I think it's a career highlight. It really is the
only right now so I can get back on. Well,
the excitement is written all over your face. But good
to see you, and I've had the pleasure of reading
another book that you've written. You've now switched seemed to
be switching from TV very much into the writing space. Yeah,
I've pivoted into authorship. It didn't start off intentionally, but
(02:33):
it's just moved that way and it's been enjoyable.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
It's been really enjoyable. Well, the book that you entertained
me with this weekend was The Mushroom Killer or the
Mushroom Murders, as the book is titled. Fascinating read. Thank you.
What is it about the Aaron Patterson case that has
captured the attention of the nation, And I'm not exaggerating
the world the world.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Yeah, looks I don't have any blinding insights other than
the more time that you know, I spent listening to
her in court when she was both giving evidence and
then being cross examined. She's fascinating because it's so unusual.
The whole case is so unusual and so rare. And
I think to find a woman who lives in the country,
(03:17):
you know, with her kids, just going about her business,
spending months planning a triple murder is so out of
the norm that no one could figure out who would
do that and what sort of person is she who
would do that, And because her character is a difficult
personality to unlock, I think it's just fascinated people for
well now months, well a lot.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
Of people have opinions on it and sort of polarized people.
I'd say more leaning to the fact that she's guilty,
But there were people saying that why would she do that?
How could she do that? It's a tragic accident. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Intention was a big issue in the case, and even
before the trial, people were saying, on the one hand,
it looked like she had done it. On the other hand,
there was no motive that anyone could really identify there.
She seemed to have no intention of doing it, And
you know, if there was no motive, can there be intention.
(04:14):
So her claim again and again that it was just
a terrible accident that she was really sorry for gained
a bit of traction.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
Yeah, and people struggle with motive. But what I found
out in my career as a homicide detective, quite often
motive is, yeah, you can't explain it, I can't exaiss.
Murdering people most times is in the irrational act, and
so you're trying to put rational thoughts into the reason
why someone would kill.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Yeah, I think a lot of people feel if they
understand the motive, they can possibly either feel more safe
themselves or make sure they're not in that position, et cetera.
But as you say that, because so few of us
are killers, we can't really get in that headspace. Things
that just make us angry make them kill.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
And you go, how does that?
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Where's that bridge?
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Well, we're going to dissect the whole whole case because
you've given the fascinating insight writing writing the book from
the perspective of a dura, the fictional duror, And I thought,
what a novel idea on the way to write the book.
I'd like to claimate that we've had the it was
your idea, but it was.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
And well it began with that, with that thought that
because there was a growing school of thought that it
might be difficult to get a conviction, because it might
be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you know
that she did intend to kill them, And so I thought, well,
whether she's as I was sort of listening to the
court case and planning the book, I thought, whether she
(05:45):
ends up being acquitted or convicted. The journey of how
a jury got to that decision with only the evidence
that was put in front of them at court. You
can't go chatting to anybody else would be a good
story in itself.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Well, you gave through reading the book and a more
in depth understanding. I have the case now. It gave
a I thought it was a very simple case to
start with, but it could have gone over way because
of that. Could have been a tragic accident, like if
she got sick from the mushrooms. This is terrible. This
poor woman. She's trying to do the right thing, inviting
(06:20):
a family or former family members over and just being charitable, and.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Then you know, and this happens, and that's right, And
that's what she was saying the whole time.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Well, when I first heard about it, and I probably
still look at things through the lens of a homicide detective,
I'm thinking, that's not too hard. I've got to look
at the case. So there was a lunch organized. Five
people turned up. One person cooked the meal, four got
critically sick from what they consumed, three of them died,
(06:52):
and the one person that invited the people there prepared
the meal. And she was fine, Now if you get
a sense, because you've written a lot of crime dramas,
so we're in the strikeforce room, setting up the whiteboard
and writing the names of the victims down, and what's happened.
There would be a lot of arrows pointing at Aaron Patterson,
(07:13):
full of them, very very quickly.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
And there were, as you know from the book, the police.
You know, she was in the frame before any of
them died. Yeah, really they were. You know, they were
obviously hoping no one would die. But you know from
the first hours that they were called, all the arrows.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
Pointed where definitely. But what it's also and in reading
the book and understanding how the trial has played out
and hearing the reports from from the media, what it's
reinforced to me how quite often cases look like a
walk up start in homicide. But to prove it beyond
reasonable doubt, and that that crucial thing, beyond reasonable doubt,
(07:54):
it's a high bar.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
It is a high bar, and but it should be
I think if you're talking about, you know, having people
of liberty for thirty odd years, it should be a
high bar. But it is a difficult part. As you say,
the original headlines five people eat a lunch, one's fine,
four critically, three die. You would think it would be
a simple case, but every step along the way the
(08:19):
defense managed to put doubt doubt. There, are you sure,
you can't say for certain that this happened, You can't
say for certain that that happened, etc. And they rack
up and.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
It's just that little bit of doubt in it. The
other thing about this case, and when we're talking about
why people are so fascinated in these particular cases, we
have I think a blind spot to women committing evil acts.
And quite often we look when in my career in policing,
a woman couldn't have done that, and if it was
(08:52):
if you flipped it, if it was reverse, if a
man had invited his ex wife's family over for a
barbecue and four of them got critically ill, people would
be going, Okay, that's a bit of a nasty human being,
But we don't really look at it when that dark
character is a female.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
I think that's true, and I think you know, in
some senses it's it is much rarer for women to
be particularly planned killers, to be premeditated is much rare,
and because it's rare that people just don't don't believe it.
The initial reaction is that that can't be right, you know,
I don't think that could happen.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Well, this country, we've got a couple of high profile
cases that play it out, and one of them Lindy Chamberlain.
To start with. We all looked at Lindy and we thought, okay,
well she's murdered murdered Zaria and that was proved to
be incorrect.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Yeah, and a lot of people judged her on how
she reacted to the camera. It didn't appear to show
the grief that you know, you expect that she should.
The everyone was going, oh, that doesn't you know, that's.
Speaker 1 (09:59):
A bit us.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
Erin was apparently grieving, you know, the first time the
cameras were on her. Yeah, and she was there, you know,
crying and thinking it was terrible, and she did's appalling
what's happened. She doesn't understand whether she learned from Lindy.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
I don't know. Well, you had Lindy, and you've had
recently in the media, the lady that was charged with
killing the foreign and she's now now been acquitted and
found found not guilty after initially being convicted. Do you
think that played a part in the way not just
(10:35):
the media approached this case, also the public approached the case.
And I dare say that the legal system approached this case,
that they got it wrong in two high profile cases,
that that might have changed the way that we all
approached this particular manner.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Yeah, I think, I think, you know, it's a sweeping statement,
but I think generally speaking, those cases were so famous
that this time there was always that hesitation. It was like, well,
we think she must have done it, but you know,
we've been wrong before. You know, can it be right
or not? And what would really convict her? And we're
not sure if And that probably fed into into the
fascination for the whole and.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
That's probably why we held back a little bit. We
did it to Lindy and Kathleen, Well we can't get
it wrong alone this time. Yeah, yeah, No, It's interesting
And I've often thought the way people react when you
hear of women committing horrendous offenses, that the public just
can't accept it. And I suppose it comes down to
when they present in a certain way, they're not that
(11:32):
sinister person. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
I think Kelly Elaine, who was a fascinated Aaron Patterson
and she was part of that Facebook similar case. Really,
a lot of people couldn't really believe that she would
do that, that a woman would do that. Yeah, and
yet the other party is going, but it seems like
she did and then and then then.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Well that is a puzzle. But look, let's balance it
out because there are some other women that have been
particularly bad. There's Catherine Mary Knight. That's a lady, a
female killer that her crime was horrendously brutal where she
killed the person she was seeing at the time, her partner,
(12:15):
skinned him and then cut his body parts up and
was preparing a meal. It's just shocking, and you're right,
you can't imagine, Yeah, a woman doing that, And I
think that's that's where we look at it going. Someone
couldn't do that, but that's that's that's what happened. Though.
We had the detective that investigated that matter on the
(12:39):
podcast and walked in and saw the skin hanging there, like.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
I actually saw it.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Yeah, just horrendous crime. There was another interesting case and
just checking the notes here, but it was Natasha Darcy,
widow of a Walker Walcher. I know that, Okay, Well
that was a situation where she poisoned her partner at
the time, and there was a previous attempt where she
tried to poison her former husband, but she wasn't successful
(13:07):
there and she ended up poisoning her second partner. So
when was this This is I would be probably ten
years ago, ten years ago. And the twist in that.
And you've been a crime writer, and I know some
of the times when I've spoken to you, when you've
been writing, you're thinking people won't believe that. But when
(13:27):
Natasha poisoned her current partner, the ambulance officer responding was
her former husband. Oh it was in a small country town.
These things happened. But anyway, we're sort of going off track.
But I think just getting a sense of this whole
Whites captured the attention of so many people, Aaron Patterson's case.
(13:53):
It is fascinating why it has and then it just
ballooned globally. How would you describe her as a person?
Speaker 2 (14:03):
Very difficult to get to know, because she tends to,
as far as I could tell listening to her say
what she feels people want to hear, or what will
put her at the center of attention, or what will
do the best for her. So there's a there's a
sort of narcissistic quality there, I suppose. I mean, I
don't have a psychology degree, but that is how she
came across as very much that you know, she's the
(14:26):
center of her world and it was annoying that other
people would be doing this to her. There was a
sense of affront that this could be happening to someone
like her when she should be starring in her own life.
That that's sort of how she came across.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Well, the images of the captured by the media, and
they're sometimes taken out of context, but there seemed to
be she was indignant about almost attention on her. What
are you doing? Why you wasting your time? Is there
anything that came out in the trial or anything that
you're aware of that sort of a indicator that she
might be capable of these horrendous murders.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
There's no when you track through her history, the only
the only things that came out in court were the
number of times that she walked out of the relationship
with Simon, And although she said at other time that
you know, they broke up or he left me, nearly
every time the way I was described in court, she
(15:29):
was the one who left him, she walked out of
the house, she took the kids with her, et cetera. So,
and you know, there's many relationships where I suppose that's
the case. But I think often often, the only slight
insight that I was thinking about with all of those
was when things weren't going her way, she would act.
(15:50):
Rather than sort of argue through or just be silent
or you know, just sort of get through the mood,
et cetera, she would act. And and that's the only
clue that I think you got to it. It was
in the way she handled that relationship, was that when
things weren't going her way, she did something about it.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
That's interesting. Like, I'm obviously not the psychologist either, but
if you're looking at motives or the actions type of thing,
she's going to take control. She's not happy with something,
she's going to change it. She's going to change it.
And certainly, committing the offense she did, she changed it
in a big way. Okay, when you first heard the case,
(16:33):
before you decided you're going to be writing the book
about it, what were your initial thoughts.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
My initial thought actually was it made more sense if
it was a terrible accident than a human being would
spend months planning this because from the very beginning you thought, well,
if she's done it, she had to go out and
pick death cap mushrooms, and you know the mushroom season
was months before, etc. And so there was a whole
(17:01):
planning behind it. And I don't know when you just
looked at the first time, you thought, is that even
possible that she could do that?
Speaker 1 (17:08):
So at the very beginning, I.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Was more in the in the don't leap to well
we say the Lindy Chamber, I think, don't leap to guilty.
The simpler explanation is somehow it's a terrible accident.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
You touched on there that the mushrooms, and I only
found that out in research prepping for this, But deaf
cap mushrooms are seasonal, so when the murders occurred, she
would have had to put the plan in in months
and months before.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Yeah, three months before.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
You're laughing, laugh, But sometimes you've got to laugh when
you think, well, how does someone plan this? Yeah, that
far in advance. So the preparation you've done for the book,
you had access to. You were listening to the trials.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
People who was approved through the Supreme Court of Victoria
Media Division to have the audio stream link. You know,
it's open justice.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
So I was.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Listening every day to the trial and then getting the
copies of the transcript at the end of that day,
so I had I had access to everything that was
publicly presented in courts. Evidence, all right, So the thorough,
very thorough.
Speaker 1 (18:26):
Yes, the partner simon or husband, well, he just seemed
like a straight normal guy. You know.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
He gave his evidence, you know, in a very calm way.
He was very direct about what he could remember and
what he couldn't remember. He talked less emotionally about their relationship,
just stuck to the facts and all of that. So
all as a because I was always thinking from a
potential jurors point of view, because that's how it's going to.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
Do the book.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
There wasn't a great door into his soul. He just
seemed like, you know, a normal, decent fellow. Loved these kids.
They both loved their kids.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Describing the community that they were living in the family,
I'm just trying to get a sense of it, like
a picture at rural Victoria an hour or so.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
About an hour hour to an hour and a half
out of out of Melbourney so it's a little like
being in the Southern Highlands. Really it's Crumba is a
small town, so's Lee and Gatha Outroms even smaller. But
they they all are close knit little communities, each of
those little townships, and you know most people know most
(19:37):
people there, and you know they would devout church goes.
The Patterson family. Ian As is well known as pastor
at Crumba Church. They mixed with the school community. We
can't say what school, but they they had a normal suburban,
middle class Australian lifestyle.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
Yeah. And the separation, you said, there's been a couple
of times when they're separated in the lead up to
the murder. What was the state of the relationship like
it at that point.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
Well, it had reached it's between Simon and Aaron. It
had reached its nadia, which pretty much everyone agreed when
they gave evidence, you know, not just Simon but also
Simon's brothers and sister that the worst point was December
twenty twenty two, which was when the argument over child support. Essentially,
(20:31):
Simon put on his tax return that he was single,
that he was separated, and that led to a situation
where Aaron could claim family tax breaks. But because of that,
the government child support system got involved, and various government
processes meant that Simon's support for the children was overseen
(20:52):
by the government.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Organization okay, And I got the sense that that was
a significant and that was a thing from Eron that
was really that saying it's over like, it's okay, We're
not not a trial separation there now we're making.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
I hadn't actually lived in the same house since twenty fifteen,
so it came seven years after that. But they had
been on holidays together, they'd shared a lot of co
parenting together. But that was the point at which you know,
her famous text messages saying things like you know, Fuckerman,
you know this family. All that sort of stuff came
about because of that situation, and that was the tipping point.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
All that was a.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Tipping point to all of it was that, yes, and
the way in her mind it wasn't just about the money,
because he wasn't paying doctor's bills and he wasn't paying
school fees because the government had told him not to.
She was more incensed at at his behavior. Now, it
was hard at the trial to get a strong sense
(21:55):
of what that behavior necessarily was, but she was really
annoyed about it. That was the point at which it
seemed like being able to sort of at least coperent
with Simon, even if they couldn't co Habit dissolved and
there was really not much relationship at all between Simon
and Aaron after that point, although she did try to
stay in close touch with Donn and with Gail.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
Yeah, tell us about the victims, because I think one
thing that's been lost in the fascination with this case
is that three people have lost their lives, and has
had lucky to survive and lost his wife, and so
there's been a lot of tragedy, huge tragedy associated associated
with this well with her actions, as the court have
(22:39):
found out. So you've got don Patterson and Gail Patterson,
her in laws, or Simon's parents. What were they like
as people?
Speaker 2 (22:49):
As far as I can tell, The way that the
various siblings described them in court is they were typical, loving,
caring grandparents parents to Simon. But in particular the relationship
with Simon and Eron's kids and with the kids of
the other siblings was very strong. I was very caring,
you know, he was tutoring the son in maths and
(23:12):
helping him get through school, building backyard rockets with him
and you know, fun stuff, cool stuff like that. Gail.
They often would have the kids over at their place.
Gail was very concerned about Aaron's health and there's a
string of text messages where she's tried to offer her
support and prayers, et cetera for the various ailments that
(23:33):
Aaron said she had. So how they came across to
us in court, who never knew them personally, was kind,
loving people.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
That seems to be the narrative that's been portrayed about them, and.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
There's nothing to suggest anything but that.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
And they seem like the perfect in laws in the
situation of separation. They were still staying in contact with
absolute eron and not making life difficult and just been.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Constantly asking about the kids and helping where they could.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Yeah, lovely people.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
I say that because it all adds up to lovely
people that she decided to kill. Then you've got Heather
Wilkinson and Ierne Wilkinson. Now Heather was Gail's sister. Yeah,
what what was a relationship they had, Well, they had.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
It was more distant like Don and Gail. You could
track through phone calls and text messages, et cetera. Quite
a relationship. They were the kid's grandparents, et cetera. Ian
and Heather were part of an extended family that Aaron
didn't appear to have all that much to do with.
They were friendly, They saw each other at church every
(24:45):
second or once a month or whatever, once a fortnite.
But as it was said at court, that was the
first time that she'd ever actually invited Ian and Heather,
you know, to a lunch right at her place. They'd
met at Christmas party and you know, big family celebrations
for birthdays, et cetera, but a specific why don't we
come and have lunch? That was the first time.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
My mind's processing it, like you're breaking it down, and
sometimes when you think about it and the why even
include those people in there, like what's the connection? What
are you trying to achieve?
Speaker 2 (25:20):
And and and you know, it's a dangerous game trying
to get inside Aaron Patterson's head. But all that was
said again, as far as I can remember, that came
out in the evidence at court was that when she'd
had a lunch, which the prosecution sort of put as
almost like a trial run about a month before, four
or five weeks before, which was shepherds bired, no mushrooms involved.
(25:42):
And at that lunch which the kids were there and
Dine and Gail and Aaron and Simon wasn't and Gail
had said that Heather would love the garden, right because
obviously I presume you know, Heather was a keen gardener.
Aaron's block was two or three acres something alean gather,
and she landscaped a lot of it and it had
(26:04):
mulched and new plants, et cetera. So it was a
night lovely looking garden, and Gail had mentioned that it
was one that Heather would really appreciate seeing, and it
seems as though that's why they were invited. There was
no other real reason. So that when at church on
the sixteenth of July, when when Aaron invited Don and
(26:26):
Gail to lunch, it appears though she Gail was talking
to Heather and she approached both of them and said
something like no one can move with exact words, but perfectly, oh,
just the people I wanted to see. The lunch was
for Don and Gail, but you know, Heather was there
with her, and Gail had previously said that she'd loved
the garden, so why don't you anything come along as well?
Speaker 1 (26:46):
Right, that seems to be it. Well, look there is
no explanation like it's you can speculate and that's yeah.
I suppose what jurors are doing too when they're looking
at these cases. It's Xantha And we'll talk in more
detail of the trial in the second part. But okay,
so you've got this situation. You're painting the picture a normal,
(27:08):
average family. That's and I think quite often the public
get interested in in a situation that happens because that
could be anyone's family, anyone.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
There's no criminality here at all. It's just an average,
middle class Australian family.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
Okay, so they've been invited around for lunch. Now there
was a pretense that Aaron had said that she wanted
to speak to them about some upcoming health issues. What
was that all about?
Speaker 2 (27:36):
Well, there was there was a lot of debate and
argument at the trial exactly about what it was about.
Initially when she was first interviewed by police. Actually, I
think Erin just said she wanted to stay close with
the family, but she had the text exchanges with Gail
in the in the couple of weeks before, she was
saying that she had a lump on her elbow and
(27:56):
that she needed to have an MRI on that, and
then she'd get the results of that back. And they
go backwards and forward to how are you have you
got the results? You know you're okay, And in the
text messages, err And says something like, oh, it's a
lot to process, but you know, hopefully, you know, I
will find a time where I can talk.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
It through with you.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
And then when they're invited to lunch, almost she made
it sound almost as a secondary motive, and she was
watering it down in court a little bit, but clearly
she felt that she wanted to do something at lunch
rather than just house things. So at lunch, she said,
and this comes mostly from Ian, who was very clear
in the witness box that she said to them at
(28:38):
the end of the lunch that she'd been diagnosed with cancer,
and part of her fear and the reason why the
kids weren't there at lunch was she was wanting to
talk about how she should break it to the kids
and whether she and Simon should do it together or
whether it should you just be her or should you
try and not tell the kids and just go through treatment,
et cetera. And they were very worried about her, and
Don was saying, I think, you know, should be up
(29:00):
front and be truthful with the kids, or good advice
Ian if had a prayer for it, that she should
make wise decisions, et cetera. As it was found out later,
there was never a diagnosis, There was never a needle biopously,
there was never an MRI, and she's never been diagnosed
with cancer. It was all a complete lie.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
What was the purpose of that, you think too? Well?
Speaker 2 (29:25):
Again in court she said she was hiding the fact
that she was really wanting to she had weight issues,
and yes she did lie about having cancer, but she
was going to have gastric bypass surgery. But in the
end my dura and I don't quite believe that either
because the facility that she had appointment.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
With on that when you say myn dura and so
I'm just getting getting a sense of how you wrote
the book, that you were really putting yourself in there,
going Okay, this is what's been presented. What was your
character like mine?
Speaker 2 (29:58):
Yeah, that so that the narrator in the book doesn't
necessarily follow exactly what I was thinking. Yes, you know,
they have their own opinions in their own background and
their own history, et cetera. But the narrator certainly doesn't
believe the gastric bypass story, which brings you back to
what was the point?
Speaker 1 (30:16):
What was the point? What was the point of it.
Speaker 2 (30:19):
All? And this is speculation again, not a psychologist. It
made her the center of attention, and it may had
everyone gave her sympathy. Yes, so it's sort of manipulating
people's feelings toward her in a way that she felt
would bond her again with the family and yet put
her at.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
The center of the story. That's that's the best I
can do. Well, I what you and your dur durham
mate have come up with. My reading of it, taking
in all the information I've got, and again it's any speculation.
It felt like to me a woman that was really
alone and was worried about losing the family like that was.
(31:02):
She might have got on with them, she might have
fought with them or whatever, but she was fearful of
being alone. And then that fear somehow turned into resentment
and then anger and then along those lines. To me,
there's not much talk with the other community or friendships
that she had was very much family orientated.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
Yes, it did feel like she was very family oriented
because remember she wasn't working, so it's not as though
she had a workspace with work colleagues or anything like that.
She had applied to do a course in nursing at
the beginning of twenty twenty three but then deferred it,
so other than dropping the kids at school or the
school bus stop, there was nothing else.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
Yes, so a fixation of that she's going to lose
the only family has she got the family like her
family separate.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
I believe she has a sister, very I think you
might even mentioned a couple of times in court. Her
father died in two thousand, but very few details about that. Yeah,
her mother died in twenty nineteen. There's a suggestion that
she had breast cancer and might have died of breast cancer,
(32:13):
but that's not quite quite clear. So she'd lost both
her parents didn't seem to have as far as you
can tell from the what's presented at court, didn't seem
to have any particular relationship with her sister. So her
only family was the Patterson family.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
And that's what appears that that was growing further and
further apart. And I suppose as the children get older too,
there's less reasons to stay in contact and that could
come into play. You said she wasn't working. Was it
one stage she was an air traffic controller?
Speaker 2 (32:44):
She was, but that was before she met Simon, So
you've got to go back to two thousand and two,
two thousand and one, two thousand and two, and yeah,
she was in air traffic controller for a couple of years.
And again just looking at what's presented at court, they
don't say much about that other than she was an
air traffic control Simon said she was working at Tullamarine.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
Now that's a hell of a chot. That's a lot
of responsibility and decisive action. You said she was a
lady of actions, so they got to be decisive.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
Yeah, that role that very and you know, very ordered,
very clinical, very logical.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
Psychologically sound too. I would imagine that comes into play
any any talk or understanding of a previous relationship she
had before Simon. Anything, Nothing out the background background there,
there's nothing at all. The evidence presented at trial really
starts with air traffic control and then she met when
she left that she started working at Monash Council. Actually
(33:40):
she was with the RSPCA and seconded to Monash Council.
That's where she met Simon and that's really where the
evidence at court. What she's doing at the RSPCA, you know, No, I.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
Don't, Actually she was.
Speaker 1 (33:52):
She was.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
She was a liaison officer for the r s p
C a with Monash Council.
Speaker 1 (33:59):
What that entailed. We never really got into the detail
thinking empathy and all sorts of things RSPC. But yeah,
it's just strange in so many ways. Can you describe
to us now the lunch, what took place? Just what
we know about the lunch and in part two will
break down the information and how it played out in
the trial. But what's the overview of the lunch?
Speaker 2 (34:20):
The overview is Don and Gale picked up In and
Heather from outside their housep drove. I think it's only
about fifteen twenty minutes or so from Crumbra to liam Gatta.
They pulled up, Aaron was actually finishing getting the lunch ready,
so they chatted for a little bit in the kitchen.
They went outside to the backyard or just on the
(34:41):
back porch and had a little look at the garden
and said some nice things about that. They came back
in Heather and Gale asked Aaron whether she needed Oh,
they actually they went to the pantry. That was an
interesting little side thing because Heather, I think, was planning
to renovate her kitchen, so she was looking at people's
pantries and figuring out different design things, etc. And Erin
(35:04):
had a big walk in pantry and she just went, oh,
can overlook and headed toward it, thinking well, no one's
going to say no, you can't look in my pantry,
and Eron did actually hesitate and tense up a little bit,
and she just said it was because it was all messy.
But Ian made a point of that in his evidence,
just saying because he was going to go over and
(35:24):
have a look at the pantry too, and then thought, oh,
something's a bit the way she overreacted to that. Then
they asked if she needed help plating up, and she
said no, there's lots of little things about, you know,
where the plates were and all that sort of stuff,
But essentially she put beef Wellington on every plate, with
some mashed potato and some beans. Gail took two of
(35:47):
the plates and these were the ones that he In
described as the four gray plates Heather took to Gail
took too. They took them over to the table, and
Aaron carried her own over there, which Ian claimed was
like an orange tan color. And clearly the jury and
the judge agreed with Ian's Testamony was very very clear
and very strong about so there were four gray plates.
(36:12):
Hers is on a separate orange tan, et cetera. They
sat down, he said grace, which I thought was an
ironic moment of all things. Yeah, thank you for this food,
my lord. They started eating. No one can remember much
about what was said at the lunch itself. They just say,
(36:34):
you know, there was a bit about how it was
apparently very nice, it was very yummy meal. Really, you
know that. They all remember that donate his beef Wellington,
and Gayl could only get through a round about half
of hers, and so he ate the other half of hers.
Ian and Heather. Ian says, both he and Heather ate
(36:58):
all of their beef Willington, but it was big. They
were sort of full after lunch.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
They didn't have And because this goes into the planning
of the murder, so the beef Wellington pie is a
size of an average pie. Is that what?
Speaker 2 (37:13):
That's what that's the assumption, Yeah, because which is not
a normal beef Wellington.
Speaker 1 (37:18):
But that if you made the big one where it
could be cut out up and everyone got sick, you'd
be we wouldn't be having this conversation. That would be
a tragic accident. It would be hard to convict. But
the fact that they've made posially. I'm not not a psychologist,
but I'm not a very good chef, but I would
imagine making five pies is more difficult than making one larger.
Speaker 2 (37:41):
But I would think, and I actually have made a
beef Wellington since okay, we've got an expert, I thought
I should have a crack at this. Yea, And yeah,
it would have been much fiddler. But then she had
to do it, yeah, to make five individual ones. In
her evidence, Aaron says that she Woolies didn't sell one
big beef I which is what you normally would wrap
(38:01):
in mushrooms and pursuto and then pastry. All well, he
is sold with the individual life at stakes and that's
why she made them individually, as doctor Rodgers and the
prosecution said in the trial, and as you know, a
quick Google will show you the lion. Gatha Butcher is
right next door to Woollies. Like you if you wanted
to buy an eye filler. Yeah, you only had to
walk twenty meters. That's where the story starts, where you
(38:24):
go break break down. It starts to break down there.
Speaker 1 (38:27):
Yeah. Well, those are all the things that come out
in the trial, but the ones that the prosecution push
and then the defense will come back with something else.
They've had their they've had their meal. Yeah, there was
no blap, was there. I suppose is the only one
we could really count on who survived. And he was
in the camera for a time after eight years.
Speaker 2 (38:47):
And he was but he just remembers it as just
just normal domestic chit chat. There's a feeling that a
bit of politics got discussed. And you have to remember
the the Yes vote de Parliament. It was going on
the same time.
Speaker 1 (39:01):
Yeah, but it was.
Speaker 2 (39:02):
It was when they had finished beef Wellington's, the main cause.
Gail had brought a cake and Heather had brought a
fruit platter. Not much of that was eaten because the
beef Wellington's were very filling. And that's that's when Aaron
said that she wanted to talk to them about the
cancer diagnosis, okay, which was bullshit, bullshit, But she played
(39:24):
played that garden and so as people say, now I'm
not sure if I'm jumping ahead of the question, but
she would have known what they were eating through that
entire lunch. So it's staggering.
Speaker 1 (39:39):
Really. Well, you look at murder and that can be
a crime of passion, that can be all sorts of
reasons for a murder, but the planning that goes into
that and then victims that honest approaches. She's got no
reason to hate these people. But yeah, no one could
find any You could hate your ex partner or whatever,
but whether that you go to the ex stream of
(40:00):
killing the person, but no animosity with these people. They
showed her only love, respect and kindness. That's the sense.
And the fact that they were even buying into your
poor thing. You might be suffering from cancer, and I
would imagine they said all the right things there.
Speaker 2 (40:18):
They did, yeah, and prayed for her, so you know,
having fed them a meal that would kill them, she
then got them to pray for her. Tell us it's astonishing.
Speaker 1 (40:29):
Simon wasn't there, but he was. Simon was not there.
He was invited he was.
Speaker 2 (40:35):
He declined the invitation with the text on the Friday
afternoon or Friday evening, just saying he felt uncomfortable going,
And in the court and minerrator in the book is
slightly annoyed because no one ever asks what was he
uncomfortable about? Right, he just says he was uncomfortable. It's
(40:55):
not till.
Speaker 1 (40:56):
After the trial, and that he could explain.
Speaker 2 (40:59):
He could explain he was uncomfortable. He'd said a very
similar with the previous lunch on the twenty fourth of June,
the Shepherd's Pie lunch. Same thing, he responded, saying, no,
I don't think he did. Say to her, if you
want to discuss how we should talk to the kids
about any medical issue you might have, or you want
to talk about your medical issues with me, give me
a call. Very happy to keep talking with her and
(41:19):
keep coparenting the kids. Just didn't want to sit down
and eat anything she'd cooked.
Speaker 1 (41:24):
That's telling, But the jury weren't aware of the details
other than he declined to go to lunch.
Speaker 2 (41:33):
Yeah, they were given no further details on why that
might be the case.
Speaker 1 (41:37):
Okay, what were the after effects of the meal? So everyone,
assuming you've described that they've sat down, had a normal
lunch discussing what they've discussed. They've left. I'm sure they
thanked Aaron.
Speaker 2 (41:52):
And they did. And Simon drops the kids back, the
son and his mate and the daughter actually stays with
and they go back and have some father daughter time.
The boys come in and that's when Don and Gale
and Ian and Heather head back home. And Ian had
some meetings for because he was going to deliver the service.
Speaker 1 (42:13):
The next day.
Speaker 2 (42:14):
So they've by three o'clock they've left, and in court
all Erin said was, well, she did a bit tiding up,
a bit of cleaning, et cetera. The kid, the boys
went in and played computer games in the TV computer
room until around about you know, six six thirty or so,
and then she needed to figure out when the son's
mate needed to go back home. And while this is
(42:37):
going on, Heather as Donegale head back to their home.
They have a conversation with they think with the daughter
who just course they had to go, and there's mention
of the fact that Aaron's had a cancer diagnosis.
Speaker 1 (42:52):
Okay, so that's something that can be relied upon. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
that's it's not just Ian saying that, Yeah, that corroborates,
and they said that to Simon the following morning as well.
They Don and Galeni and Heather are fine till around
about midnight. Hard to put no one notes at the
(43:15):
exact time, but call it sometime around about eleven eleven
thirty in midnight, have ust well, and pretty much within
an hour all four of them start having severe diarrhea
and vomiting. And so all of that would be around
about eleven twelve hours after they've digested the yeah, after
(43:37):
the beef Wellington's, and that becomes significant because most viral
and bacterial gastrobugs, you start feeling sick two three four
hours later. One of the things that first made the
toxicologists suspect and wonder whether it could be death cap
mushrooms was that delay. Okay, rare, it's rare, and it's specific,
(44:03):
like deathcat mushrooms are known to take that long.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
They can't you can't get early symptoms. It just doesn't
get through the liver and the bile and the blow
in that time. So that that was a not conclusive,
but it was a strong indicator given the fact that
they'd eaten a beef Wellington with mushrooms in it, and
they had eleven to twelve hours delayed presentation.
Speaker 1 (44:24):
Reasonable.
Speaker 2 (44:25):
Yeah, it was a reasonable hypothesis. Pretty quickly, what happened
Erin's Erin's journey through that Saturday evening, we largely have
to take Erin's word for it, which is dicey to
say the least. I been very kind, yea.
Speaker 1 (44:42):
So she.
Speaker 2 (44:44):
Drops her son's mate home about seven ish. She says
to Simon the next day that she start and she
says to the child protection worker two or three days
later that she started having a diarrhea. And she never
claimed to wine. She said she had nausea and diary
and that she was starting to feel that around about
(45:05):
seven o'clock. And it was one of the small things
that became an issue because if she had eaten the
same meal as Don and Galea and the and Heather,
she should not have would not have got those symptoms
so early, so early.
Speaker 1 (45:21):
Yeah, And that's those little lies that she told and.
Speaker 2 (45:26):
Trying to try to say I'm the same as them,
I'm the same as them, fit the story, yeah, but
in fact it made the story harder for her for her.
Speaker 1 (45:36):
Once she she realized what happened. Eventually they got admitted
to hospital.
Speaker 2 (45:42):
They did. The following morning, Don calls an ambulance and
he and Gala taken straight to Crumborough Hospital.
Speaker 1 (45:50):
And why are we talking in terms of a hospital
there and the like?
Speaker 2 (45:54):
Literally there are two beds in the You're.
Speaker 1 (45:56):
Lucky to have a doctor. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (45:59):
Yeah, So the reason why Ian and Heather ended up
at Liam Gather Hospital was because Don and go were
already in the two beds in Crumber.
Speaker 1 (46:06):
So it was that capacity.
Speaker 2 (46:07):
Yeah, Simon picks up the Inn and Heather and drives them, well,
he drove them to Crumber and they said, sorry, we're
full with your parents. And so he was driving in
and Heather to Lian Gather and that it's during that
phase when Heather's saying to Simon it puzzles her why
Aaron had a separate plate. She said, we all had
the same plates. I don't think she Simon doesn't say
(46:30):
she actually said gray plates. That's very much what Ian's
memory is, but he's very strong on that. But Heather
did say to Simon, we all had the same plates,
and she had.
Speaker 1 (46:40):
A different had a different plate.
Speaker 2 (46:41):
Yeah, why would that be? And she never goes that
extra step. But clearly she's thinking it's weird.
Speaker 1 (46:48):
Okay, is just picking up that's stranger having dinner party
and yeah six six plates even tho if you we
have lost a few, you can.
Speaker 2 (46:58):
So they Yeah, so they start It looks like they've
got a severe case of normal viral gastro and so are.
Speaker 1 (47:04):
They is a thought process you think going through their mind.
They wouldn't. They wouldn't be thinking we've been murdered at
this stage. Yeah, maybe unhygienic. The way she prepared the meal,
or what she feather said was the meat.
Speaker 2 (47:20):
You're more likely to think the meat. In fact, doctor
Chris Webster at lean Gatha, his initial thought was it's
probably off meat. Yeah, your mind doesn't go straight to
deathcat mushrooms. Yeah, And that's what they were thinking.
Speaker 1 (47:32):
And so they.
Speaker 2 (47:33):
Were doing a lot of the standard treatments that you
would for people who are becoming dehydrated because they've had
so much diarrhea and so much vomiting. So they have
saline drips and things like that to keep fluid up,
et cetera. And that goes on through Sunday, Sunday afternoon.
It's Sunday afternoon. Having done all that a normal gastro bug,
(47:55):
you'd start to settle down down in particular because he
had one and a half, Wellington just kept getting worse.
The diary got worse, the vomiting got worse, and none
of the normal simple things you do for ordinary gastra
were having any effect. And they didn't have the sophisticated
tests needed at Little Corumbra Hospital, so they immediately said,
(48:18):
well they need to go to a higher tier hospital.
So they went to They put them in a ambulance
and took them to Dandenol Hospital on Sunday night, and
that's where Beth Morgan was the doctor in charge of
them there, and Ian and Heather at this stage are
still at leon Gatha, but following a similar trajectory like
(48:39):
just not in the illness, if anything worse, they weren't.
Don was the one who was who was really getting
worse faster at that point in time, and it was
his blood tests, the more sophisticated blood test that Dandenol
Hospital could do that started ticularly getting Beth Morgan worried
(49:02):
because they showed what's called an elevated lactate. And this
is me not being a doctor, but just reading the evidence,
they put a trial, and it was the nature that
elevated lactate that indicated to her that there was significant
liver damage happening. And this, this is not normal, This
is not your average gastro and when it's starting the damage,
(49:22):
we're we're starting to damage the liver. And are few
other medico things around that which I can't quite remember,
but that was the significant one. And she later that
evening she gets on to Mark Douglas, the toxicologist. Meanwhile,
while she's scratching her head about an elevated lactate, Aaron
(49:42):
is feeding, says and the kids sort of say, this too,
is feeding the leftovers to her kids. That's happening at
the same time. And I feel and know from reading
the book that I my Duror. That's where she bumps
the most that if Aaron's claim that she's had explosive
(50:03):
diarrhea through Saturday night, she's aware. I guess they're all
in trying to back away from that, but the evidence
is pretty strong that she knew that Don and Gai
were in hospital. So you know that your lunch has
made you sick, You're not going to dish it up
to your kids unless you know it's uncontaminated. Otherwise I
(50:23):
don't think any just it doesn't just go against parenting,
it goes against an instinctive human reaction to feeling sick
after eating something. So that was very odd and I
think one of the things that really undid erin So,
while the kids are having a great piece of steak
from leftover from Saturday lunch, Beth is talking to Mark
(50:45):
Douglash's toxicologist at Dandenong Hospital. And that's when the short
simple version that the medical version is much much more
detailed and complex. The short simple version is they put
together the live damage coming from being noticed by the
high lactate level together with the long twelve hour separation
(51:07):
between eating the lunch and actually having sudden symptoms and
serious symptoms. And that's when Mark thinks, well, one explanation
for this is death cap mushrooms.
Speaker 1 (51:18):
Now his.
Speaker 2 (51:20):
Boss, toxicology boss at danden On effectively says, yes, it
could be, but it still could be many other things.
We don't quite know. Where we sitting here now can
play hindsight at that point in time.
Speaker 1 (51:33):
There could be other thing.
Speaker 2 (51:34):
There could be half a dozen other things. But at
that point they knew that death caps was on the
table as a possibility. And Beth Morgan at seven o'clock
on the Monday morning, she knows that he and the
other two hunch Gercine and Heather a lean Gath hospital
and she calls Chris Webster lean Gatha and says, we've
(51:56):
got a deep suspicion that this it was the mushrooms
in this meal, and it was death capoms that have
created the problem here. And again no one's doctors too
cautious to say beyond doubt, but it was heavily suspected.
Speaker 1 (52:12):
And that adds a whole nother layer of concern because
you did these mushrooms come from?
Speaker 2 (52:17):
Where did they come from? Is there going to be
an outbreak of death cap poison through Melbourne?
Speaker 1 (52:22):
Were they sold in the local supermarket? There's someone there.
Speaker 2 (52:26):
So their main fear wasn't oh has people been murdered?
It was public health. He was, oh, my god, like
you know, we've got to stop this from becoming a
public health issue. And so they were worried about Aaron
because they thought that she could will be at home
with the same symptomces violently ill. So when Aaron arrives
(52:48):
at Leanngath the hospital around about it five past eight
on the Monday morning. Chris words just basically going in it.
Thank God, we're wondering where you are.
Speaker 1 (52:57):
You stay here.
Speaker 2 (52:58):
We suspect that your other lunch guests are they're very unwell.
Exactly what was said here. Lots of people remember slightly
different versions of those conversations as they do as they
do memory. And you know, doctors have to be careful
of Gee, if I say I said that, maybe I've
broken patient confidentiality. On the other hand, he was trying
to save lives and trying to identify where the mushrooms
(53:22):
came from in case it became a public health issue,
so he says, and she tells him that the kids
hate the leftover, So he's saying, you've got to get
the kids here. Now, you've got to stay here. Now,
we've got to make sure that you don't end up
as seriously well because Ian and here that at that
time in the footage you see because you can find
it online now where she lets herself she walks out
(53:45):
against medical advice because her reaction to being told you
could die unless you stay here and we run immediate
test was I want to go home, So.
Speaker 1 (53:54):
I'm not going to help anyone get away of murder.
But these are not the things that help you get
away of murder. But when you see that vision on mine,
if you find it, the ambulance in the background is
the one that's going to be taking in Heather to
Dandenol hospital, right because they're getting worse and errands, and
Aaron's walking out to go and make sure the dog's fed.
And you know, the daughter's got ballet organized, and she's
(54:18):
already fed the leftovers to the kids kids, and she's
just claiming you don't have to check them because I
scraped the mushrooms off.
Speaker 2 (54:26):
And the doctor's going, well, you don't know if you've
got everything. It only takes a minuscule amount. And if
you're a parent, and you were this was a terrible accident,
it's hard not to think your first reaction on being
told this would be, God, I'm going to call the
school and get them in here and get them checked.
Speaker 1 (54:45):
YEA, surely, And she is this when the this is
where she lost me like I had the benefit of
the doubt at the moment. And this is not from
the trial transcripts. This is from when it was reported
in the media. I bought the mush rooms from I
don't know, there was an Asian food store. Yeah, and
(55:05):
to me that was a gotcha moment in my mind.
I thought, Okay, well there's no if there was any doubt,
But that's what she was telling the medical staff and health.
Speaker 2 (55:15):
Yeah, from the very beginning, she was surprised. The prosecution
team make a point, and I think they're right, particularly
now we know so much more about those first three
attempted burdens. What shocked there in the most was how
fast the medical team knew got onto it that it
was deathcap mushrooms with the problem. And yes, from the
very beginning she's sang, but it was button mushrooms from Woolies,
(55:38):
sliced button mushrooms and dried mushrooms from an Asian grosser
in Oakley or Mount Waverley. And then she thinks could
have been Glen Waverley. And there's another suburb. There's four
of them that she mentions, and these were all the
suburbs around the unit that the kids and she stayed
(56:01):
at during the school holitay. She had a vague idea
of the area. She had a vague idea of the area.
She knew there are a lot of Asian grosses there,
but could not remember anything.
Speaker 1 (56:12):
There was some selective memory because she could remember the package,
could the packaging, but couldn't remember the shore.
Speaker 2 (56:19):
Yeah, couldn't describe the shop at all, but could describe
the packaging, which was clear. It wasn't didn't have a commercial.
Speaker 1 (56:26):
Brand name on it.
Speaker 2 (56:27):
It had a label and maybe it used by date
or whatever, and it said something like wild forest mushrooms
or she was a bit vague, but something like that.
Speaker 1 (56:36):
Yeah. Lied with enough ring of truth, enough ring a truth,
but hard to investigate, groborate one way of the other.
Speaker 2 (56:42):
Yeah, and they never could.
Speaker 1 (56:43):
When did the police get know the five of these
people that turned up?
Speaker 2 (56:48):
This was mon so Mondays, the thirty first, So I
think it's the Tuesday, Yeah, the first. So by now
Ian and Heather are at danden On Hospital in care Don,
and Gale have gone to the Austin which is the
top it's the liver transplant hospital in Melbourne and I
(57:09):
think I'd have to go back and double check, but
I think it's that first, that Tuesday. The first is
when it's called the Basque cost Criminal unit in rural Victoria.
They call Homicide at VIC Bolt headquarters in Spence Street
and say, look, we've got four people in intensive care
(57:31):
and one who doesn't want to come and be treated.
Speaker 1 (57:36):
And I keep laughing and I shouldn't, I really shouldn't.
Speaker 2 (57:39):
And in the end Erin did go to Monash Hospital
for a day. She had low potassium. They gave us
some supplements overnight to bring a potassium level up. They
had lots of evidence at the trial to suggest that
she had some form of small amount of diarrhea, but
who knows, as could have taken a laxative whatever, no
(58:01):
liver damage whatsoever. And she was she was released on
that Tuesday. So's she's being driven home with the kids
by the childcare worker while Don and Gail are in
the Austin at the top transplant Hospital Melbourne in and
here they are about to get there, and that's when
(58:23):
Homicide get called and say you might want to keep
this on your radar.
Speaker 1 (58:27):
Okay, well, thousand questions, but that's what we're going to
delve into in the In the next part, we might
take a break now and then we're going to look
at the police investigation and the trial and some of
the things that came out in the trial that the
defense tried to rebut and some of the overwhelming evidence
(58:48):
and work out why you're dura. Mate, decided that we've
got a killer here.
Speaker 2 (58:56):
Yeah, okay, okay.
Speaker 1 (58:57):
Back Shortly the back net dis
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.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!