Speaker 1: The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Speaker 1: Detective see aside of life. The average person is never
Speaker 1: exposed her I spent thirty four years as a cop.
Speaker 1: For twenty five of those years, I was catching killers.
Speaker 1: That's what I did for a living. I was a
Speaker 1: homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
Speaker 1: I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.
Speaker 1: The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
Speaker 1: from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
Speaker 1: and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some
Speaker 1: of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
Speaker 1: no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Speaker 1: Join me now as I take you into this world. Today,
Speaker 1: we have a bonus episode for you. We're going to
Speaker 1: talk about the Mushroom murder case. This is a case
Speaker 1: that has captured the attention of the whole world. A
Speaker 1: supposedly average middle aged lady called Aaron Patterson invited her
Speaker 1: former husband parents, Gail and Donald Patterson, and Gail's sister
Speaker 1: Heather and her husband, Iern Wilkinson over for lunch. Three
Speaker 1: of those guests, Gail, Donald, and Heather died. Ian Wilkinson
Speaker 1: was the only victim who survived after being served a
Speaker 1: fatal mushroom lunch. Now this was not an accident. This
Speaker 1: was cold blooded murder, as the Victorian Supreme Court ruled
Speaker 1: this week when Aaron was convicted of murdering her guests
Speaker 1: and the attempted murder of Iran Wilkinson, we thought we
Speaker 1: might have a closer look at this case. So I've
Speaker 1: invited my good friend and a previous guest on I
Speaker 1: Catch Killers, criminologist Xanti Mallett, who has been following this
Speaker 1: case closely, to talk all about the case. When they
Speaker 1: talk about the crime, what happened, how the investigation played out,
Speaker 1: the facts that came out in the trial, and we're
Speaker 1: going to try to get an understanding of who Aaron
Speaker 1: Patterson is and why she would commit such a horrendous crime.
Speaker 1: But before we do, when discussing cases like this, we
Speaker 1: need to understand that three innocent people had their lives
Speaker 1: taken and their loved ones will carry this for the
Speaker 1: rest of their lives. Murder has a ripple effect. It
Speaker 1: doesn't just impact on those who lost their lives, but
Speaker 1: also those who love them. I think it's important with
Speaker 1: all the fascination about this case, when we talk about it,
Speaker 1: we should not lose sight of the tragedy of what
Speaker 1: has happened here. Zanthon Mallett, Welcome to our Catch Killers. Hello,
Speaker 1: thanks for coming on. I know you're a busy person.
Speaker 2: Well been a busy week, it has, but always a pleasure.
Speaker 1: Well, last time we caught up, I think we went
Speaker 1: out for a night which turned into it started off
Speaker 1: as dinner and then ended into drinks after dinner, and
Speaker 1: I blamed Tim Watson Monroe.
Speaker 2: I always blamed him for everything. He's a troublemaker, that man.
Speaker 1: He's a bad human being. And it was you, me,
Speaker 1: Duncan McNabb and we were the innocent ones.
Speaker 2: And Tim Duncan mcm is also a bad influence.
Speaker 1: Encourage us to have a drink. But it was good
Speaker 1: fun as usual, So yeah, thanks for coming on. I've
Speaker 1: talked about upfront before you came on, about the impact
Speaker 1: of murder, and yeah, this case and that's captured so
Speaker 1: many people's attention. But what sometimes lost on this is
Speaker 1: that three lives have been lost and all the people
Speaker 1: around them, how many lives have been impacted upon. But
Speaker 1: before we go on, I do owe you an apology
Speaker 1: because on the Kathleen Folbeck.
Speaker 2: Matter, Oh oh yeah.
Speaker 1: Here it comes. I said apology. I didn't say I
Speaker 1: was wrong. Say softly so people aren't listening. But look,
Speaker 1: that was another horrendous situation. But you always maintained and
Speaker 1: we had some very debate debates. That's a nice way
Speaker 1: of putting it about the guilt or innocence, and you
Speaker 1: always maintain that she should be acquitted by the court
Speaker 1: based on the evidence. And I've got to say, you
Speaker 1: were proven to be right. So yeah, so did you.
Speaker 2: Say you were going to apologize?
Speaker 1: Did you say that was an apology?
Speaker 2: So? Was it? Okay?
Speaker 1: All right?
Speaker 2: Loosely? All right, Okay, I accept that you were wrong.
Speaker 1: I I can't say the word. But now it was
Speaker 1: an interesting take on it. And that's the high stakes
Speaker 1: of the court system and investigating, yes, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're kind of making light of that because we
Speaker 2: did have that bet, and I told you owed me
Speaker 2: a whole creative beer when I was found to be correct,
Speaker 2: and so I'll hold you to that. But at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, that's another woman's life who's been
Speaker 2: irrevocably changed. You know, she lost twenty years of her
Speaker 2: life as a result of her error, and so, you know,
Speaker 2: we kind of joked about it, but it's actually really
Speaker 2: deadly serious when things go wrong with the court system.
Speaker 1: Yeah, most definitely. Now, for you've been on the guests
Speaker 1: being on as a guest previously on I Catch Killers.
Speaker 1: But for people that don't know you, I describe you
Speaker 1: as a forensic anthropologist, criminologist, academic television presenter, successful author
Speaker 1: and host of Motive and Method podcast, and someone who
Speaker 1: has a deep understanding and fascination and expertise in all
Speaker 1: things crime. Have I missed anything?
Speaker 2: I don't think so. I think I do all of
Speaker 2: those things. I'm not sure I do all of those
Speaker 2: things really well, but okay, yes, yeah, I do double
Speaker 2: in all of those Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Because you have been involved in crime in various
Speaker 1: various ways, looking at crime and dissecting crime for a
Speaker 1: long time. So I thought I wanted to talk about
Speaker 1: the ushroom murder case because it's captured the fascination of
Speaker 1: so many people, not just in this country, it looks
Speaker 1: like worldwide. Yep.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've done did a podcast the UK, I've done
Speaker 2: interviews the UK, France, other places in Europe I can't
Speaker 2: even remember. Yes, it's everywhere.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what what is it about this case that's fascinated people?
Speaker 1: What's your thoughts on that?
Speaker 2: I think there are a number of things. I think. Firstly,
Speaker 2: it's Aaron Patterson itself. Like you probably remember those first interviews.
Speaker 2: You look at Aaron Patterson, and she's so normal, right,
Speaker 2: She's so average. You know, she's a fifty year old woman.
Speaker 2: She could be anyone you pass in the shops. You're
Speaker 2: not going to look twice at her, because she's just
Speaker 2: so pedestrian, so average. And I think that kind of
Speaker 2: including where it happened. It happened in this really cute
Speaker 2: little town that nobody actually heard of either. That's you
Speaker 2: in this wine country and it's known for the cheese
Speaker 2: and the beauty. And then you have these three deaths,
Speaker 2: these three awful deaths. You know, we're not these I
Speaker 2: think a poison is a particularly brutal and cruel way
Speaker 2: to kill someone because it takes so long, you're talking
Speaker 2: five days, six days. It's horrendous. And so you look
Speaker 2: at the situation and you look at the accused and
Speaker 2: what happened, and the two things just don't go together,
Speaker 2: you go, how could that woman be responsible for this?
Speaker 2: And nobody have any idea that there was anything going
Speaker 2: on in the background.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all I have just noticed, like so many people
Speaker 1: have an opinion on that right from right from the start.
Speaker 1: Do you think she's done it? And there seems to
Speaker 1: be a divided There was divided opinion. That wasn't one
Speaker 1: way or the other. People were fascinated by it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well it all came down to intent, didn't it?
Speaker 2: You know, did she do it on purpose? Clearly she
Speaker 2: made the meal that led to the deaths, and it
Speaker 2: hinged on intent. And how do you actually prove intent?
Speaker 2: That was always what was going to be the challenge
Speaker 2: for the crown because the only person who knows why
Speaker 2: she did what she did is Aaron Patterson. So unless
Speaker 2: you can climb inside her head, you can't prove it.
Speaker 2: So I think that was people just find it inexplicable.
Speaker 2: Why would she do it? And if you haven't got
Speaker 2: a good reason, it's like, well she's got no reason
Speaker 2: for doing it, so therefore did it happen?
Speaker 1: Yeah? No motive? And was it tragedy?
Speaker 2: Always a problem?
Speaker 1: Isn't it a tragic? Excellent? Just break it down and
Speaker 1: describe the crime to people, just a summary summary of
Speaker 1: what happened if you could, Yes.
Speaker 2: Sure so. Almost exactly two years ago, Aaron Patterson invited
Speaker 2: her family, which included her estranged husband they're not divorced,
Speaker 2: Simon estranged husband, his parents, and his aunt and uncle
Speaker 2: for a family lunch. She claimed to have cancer and
Speaker 2: she wanted to get the whole family together as this
Speaker 2: meal because she was supposedly deeply unwell. So Simon didn't go.
Speaker 2: He said he felt uncomfortable, so he elected not to
Speaker 2: go to that lunch, but the other four did. She
Speaker 2: cooked that beef Wellington that now fame was beef Wellington,
Speaker 2: and subsequently three of the four guests died and Ian
Speaker 2: Wilkinson was very lucky to survive. I think he was
Speaker 2: in hospital for around seven weeks and eventually when he
Speaker 2: came out of his coma after a few days, woke
Speaker 2: to find that his wife was deceased, which must have
Speaker 2: been heartbreaking. And as the investigation unfolded, there were questions
Speaker 2: as to what was in the lunch. You know, it
Speaker 2: appeared to be the mushrooms. Originally Aaron Patterson claimed that
Speaker 2: they'd been brought from a Chinese supermarket, but couldn't couldn't
Speaker 2: give a location. Then she eventually said that she had
Speaker 2: been foraging and deathcat mushrooms were identified as the toxin.
Speaker 2: She had a dehydrator that she had got rid off
Speaker 2: very quickly after the event. And also one of the
Speaker 2: things I thought was interesting that came out at trial,
Speaker 2: she also had a couple of mobile phones. And I'd
Speaker 2: be interested in your take on this. This fifty year
Speaker 2: old woman has two mobile phones moving this in cards
Speaker 2: around and she did a number of factory resets on
Speaker 2: those phones in the days after this event happened, and
Speaker 2: she also did one of those by distance when the
Speaker 2: police had actually taken that phone. That was pretty cool, yeah, right,
Speaker 2: and not normal, not normal for a fifty year old
Speaker 2: woman to have, you know, these phones that she does
Speaker 2: these resets on. Anyway, Subsequently, it took five days for
Speaker 2: two of the victims ste and six days for the
Speaker 2: third victim to die, and then obviously the investigation unfolded
Speaker 2: from there. I think homicide were involved after a couple
Speaker 2: of days, even before people were dying. Aeron Patterson herself
Speaker 2: claimed to have been slightly and well. She did go
Speaker 2: to hospital very briefly, but discharged herself against medical advice,
Speaker 2: and there was no evidence she was actually onwell at
Speaker 2: that stage. So that's basically, in a nutshell what happened.
Speaker 2: And obviously two years later she has been found guilty
Speaker 2: of the three murders and attempted murder and she is
Speaker 2: now going to spend in essence for the rest of
Speaker 2: her life in prison.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'd say that's a likely likely scenario looking at
Speaker 1: the police investigation, because I'm obviously interested in the way
Speaker 1: it would be approached. When it was first report, that
Speaker 1: was a doctor that drew the attention to the police
Speaker 1: and said, okay, it's for someone to come into a
Speaker 1: hospital one person, but when you got three people, there's
Speaker 1: a suspicion attached. So that's when police first became involved.
Speaker 1: When the doctors made calls.
Speaker 2: Well, it was the doctor my understanding, it was the
Speaker 2: doctor that had treated Aaron Patterson. So she attended hospital
Speaker 2: saying she was unwell, but they couldn't find any physical signs,
Speaker 2: you know, she seemed perfectly healthy. All her ops were normal,
Speaker 2: So she wanted to discharge herself immediately, and that the
Speaker 2: doctor was suspicious by her behavior that was treating her,
Speaker 2: so she did discharge herself, and he called the police saying,
Speaker 2: you know this is unusual. Her behavior were suspicious.
Speaker 1: Yeah, appropriate too. You wouldn't want this one slipping through.
Speaker 1: So okay, you've got a situation like that. So I'm
Speaker 1: imagining when the police turn up, they'd get all the
Speaker 1: details of what took place. You've got five people at
Speaker 1: the lunch, four of them are critically ill, and that
Speaker 1: the person that prepared the meal is not showing signs
Speaker 1: of the poisoning that the other victims went through. I think,
Speaker 1: and I've heard it said that the fact that the
Speaker 1: Ian Wilkinson didn't die is sort of a floor in
Speaker 1: her planning of the murders.
Speaker 2: Well, I certainly think he was very influential. I mean,
Speaker 2: we can't say what influenced the jury because we can
Speaker 2: never ask them in Australia, right, but from his evidence
Speaker 2: he was very compelling. I thought he did very well
Speaker 2: given imagine the pressure he was under in court, the
Speaker 2: situation he was having to recall. So he did almost die.
Speaker 2: He was very lucky to survive. But he could give
Speaker 2: evidence of the different color plates that we used at
Speaker 2: that lunch, and that became quite crucial. So he said
Speaker 2: that she served three, sorry, four portions. They were each
Speaker 2: individual portions of beef Wellington on the same color plates,
Speaker 2: and there was one that was different, and that was
Speaker 2: the one that Aaron patinated. So you could extrapolate from
Speaker 2: that that she wanted to be able to clearly identify
Speaker 2: hers against all the others. Now, she said that she
Speaker 2: just doesn't have enough of the same color plates, which
Speaker 2: I mean, that's possible, right. It really depends on the person.
Speaker 2: Because when I heard that, I was thinking, I break
Speaker 2: plates all the time. And I realized last weekend I
Speaker 2: had some guests over and I didn't have enough plates.
Speaker 2: I had to use a picnic plate because I didn't
Speaker 2: have enough plates. And I was like, well, that's embarrassing.
Speaker 2: Those people are fine, and well, yes, and I just
Speaker 2: actually everyone just sat down where they chose at dinner.
Speaker 2: I didn't actually choose the seating. No, I just didn't
Speaker 2: have enough flates because I break them all the time.
Speaker 2: It won't shock you to know that I'm clumsy, but
Speaker 2: I did. I thought about that then because I was like,
Speaker 2: I have to use a picnic plate. That's embarrassing. But
Speaker 2: I thought of that situation. But I can see why
Speaker 2: Ian noticed that you know, and it does seem unusual
Speaker 2: that she had this different color plate and she allocated
Speaker 2: who Ape was.
Speaker 1: And maybe at the time it didn't stand there. But
Speaker 1: if in the situation the way I'd played out the
Speaker 1: mb looking back there and go okay, that's interesting, Well, I.
Speaker 2: Think it depends. I mean, me not having that in
Speaker 2: plates doesn't matter to me. I'm not that kind of person.
Speaker 2: But for some people would have found that embarrassing and
Speaker 2: it would have been unusual for them, And so I
Speaker 2: think it depends on Aaron Patterson. But also my understanding
Speaker 2: is and I think it was Heather, but somebody may
Speaker 2: correct me if I'm wrong. But Heather also mentioned when
Speaker 2: she was first taken in the ambulance that the plates
Speaker 2: were different colors.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: Now, if that's something when you're unwell in an ambulance
Speaker 2: and that's something you feel the need to share, obviously
Speaker 2: it's something that stood out to you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Now, from a policing point of view, the crucial
Speaker 1: part on that would be the toxicology examinations of what
Speaker 1: cause the illness and subsequent depths. But also you'd be
Speaker 1: looking at getting a version like who prepared the meal,
Speaker 1: who served the meal and getting the version from that person.
Speaker 1: Do you know any details about what the version that
Speaker 1: Aaron Patterson provide the police first up?
Speaker 2: Now, my understanding is that she basically served that meal
Speaker 2: and she didn't have any assistance with that, and I
Speaker 2: think he and Wilkinson confirmed that. I'd have to I'm
Speaker 2: digging into my memory, but I think people offered to
Speaker 2: a sister, but she insisted on doing all herself. So
Speaker 2: she made the meal, she purchased the ingredients. No one
Speaker 2: else had a hand in it was. What was also
Speaker 2: interesting about the meal though the two there were two
Speaker 2: Patterson children, oh who we can't discuss in any more
Speaker 2: detail than that, except to say that they weren't at
Speaker 2: the meal. They were off at the movies, right, So
Speaker 2: they did not eat the meal. However, Erin did give
Speaker 2: them the leftovers, but she'd scrape the mushrooms off. She
Speaker 2: said the children didn't like mushrooms. What's interesting is the
Speaker 2: medigs were telling her to get the children checked out,
Speaker 2: and she didn't because she wasn't concerned about them because
Speaker 2: she'd remove the mushrooms. Now, how did she know that
Speaker 2: it was the mushrooms of all that were the problem
Speaker 2: with the meal? You would get them checked, wouldn't.
Speaker 1: You got most definitely?
Speaker 2: Is there any reason you can think of that you
Speaker 2: would not at least get them checked via medical professionally.
Speaker 1: See the type of thing we're talking about here, and
Speaker 1: the type of things that you're raising, they're the red
Speaker 1: flags from an investigator's point of view, They're the things
Speaker 1: that you'd be looking at. Okay, this is a little
Speaker 1: bit unusual. If Aaron got sick as well, it would
Speaker 1: change the way that you'd focus on the investigation. But
Speaker 1: all these things are sort of adding up, these little
Speaker 1: things that would certainly put the put the suspicion right
Speaker 1: on her. Having said that, there's still a lot of
Speaker 1: work to do to prove this case. I looked at
Speaker 1: it from the start, and I formed my own own
Speaker 1: opinion right from the start when snippets of information were
Speaker 1: coming out. But it's one thing to have an opinion,
Speaker 1: it's another thing to prove the case. Do you think
Speaker 1: this was a difficult case to investigate and prove?
Speaker 2: I do, because it goes back to that intent, you know,
Speaker 2: we had the crown had to demonstrate intent, and that's
Speaker 2: always going to be a challenging I remember when she
Speaker 2: was arrested. It was about three months post the event,
Speaker 2: and people were saying, especially in the media, art it's
Speaker 2: taken so long to arrest her, And I was like,
Speaker 2: when I was doing interviews about it, I was like
Speaker 2: three months and a multiple death investigation is not a
Speaker 2: long time. They had to collect the CCTV. They were
Speaker 2: looking for electronic equipment at her house that they needed
Speaker 2: to get analyzed. They had the dehydrator which she dumped
Speaker 2: around four days after the lunch for which there's CCTV
Speaker 2: evidence of her doing, so that's you know, this was
Speaker 2: not well planned. But they needed to send that abroad
Speaker 2: to see whether they were deathcap mushroom spores in that desicator,
Speaker 2: so that wasn't an expertise we had in Australia. So
Speaker 2: all of this had to be gathered before they could
Speaker 2: arrest her. They had to obviously develop the brief of evidence.
Speaker 2: So three months was not a long time before arresting her.
Speaker 2: But I think it would have been very difficult because, Okay,
Speaker 2: they may have had evidence that she had been foraging,
Speaker 2: for example, but proving that she intentionally chose death cap
Speaker 2: mushrooms and intentionally put them in that meal, there's a
Speaker 2: leap there that they had to fill in those gaps
Speaker 2: for the jury to.
Speaker 1: Be able to approve that. I suppose from a starting point,
Speaker 1: you haven't got multiple suspects in this. You're looking at
Speaker 1: the obvious suspect is a person that prepared the meal,
Speaker 1: served the meal, and the one person that wasn't impacted
Speaker 1: from the meal, even though that she was sitting down
Speaker 1: at the dinner table. What were the circumstances in why
Speaker 1: the people were there, Like, she wasn't divorced from her husband,
Speaker 1: but they're separated. Yeah, I'm all for keeping families friendly
Speaker 1: after separation, but what was the basis of these people
Speaker 1: being invited for lunch?
Speaker 2: Well, she was apparently quite close to her in laws
Speaker 2: and Simon's family. You know, they've been married a long time.
Speaker 2: She was obviously the mother of their grandchildren, et cetera.
Speaker 2: And things have got a little like crimonious, and there'd
Speaker 2: been a distance between them that she is mentioned and
Speaker 2: there are some text messages that were released in and
Speaker 2: she said that she invited them around because she was
Speaker 2: trying to kind of, you know, regenerate that relationship. And
Speaker 2: also she claimed to have cancer and so she was
Speaker 2: kind of playing on the sympathies. I guess these are
Speaker 2: really kind, lovely people, you know, and they went around
Speaker 2: there to support her, and she knew that she would
Speaker 2: be able to manipulate them into coming around by telling
Speaker 2: them a sob story.
Speaker 1: Was that pulled out to them? First?
Speaker 2: Up?
Speaker 1: Did she announce that she's suffering then illness or yes?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, she told them, and that's why she wanted
Speaker 2: to come around, because I think she said something like
Speaker 2: this maybe the last time we're all together.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well that's a hard invite to to.
Speaker 2: How do you say, no, oh, no, okay, you've got cancer. No,
Speaker 2: we're not going to come to lunch. You know.
Speaker 1: I suppose the other thing about this investigation too, like
Speaker 1: there's one thing to serve something that you know is
Speaker 1: going to make people sick. But to prove murder, you've
Speaker 1: got to prove the intended murder or a total reckless indifference.
Speaker 1: So did she know about the effect of death cap mushrooms?
Speaker 2: Well, now that is a good question. It would be
Speaker 2: difficult to prove that she knew about death cap mushrooms
Speaker 2: right specifically, but there was evidence that she knew where
Speaker 2: they were available in the area. So there are websites
Speaker 2: where you know, people go foraging and people with an
Speaker 2: interest in fungi will say what they've found, so either
Speaker 2: people can go and look at it if it's particularly unusual,
Speaker 2: or in fact avoid it. So there are a couple
Speaker 2: of people who had seen death cap mushrooms growing and
Speaker 2: had put them on these websites to warn people not
Speaker 2: to forage in that area because death cups look very normal,
Speaker 2: which is another part of this. Everything looks normal, right,
Speaker 2: She looks normal, the lunch looks normal. Death caps look harmless.
Speaker 2: So everyone's like, don't go and forage there because there
Speaker 2: are death caps there. Now there's evidence that she actually
Speaker 2: knew specifically where these death caps were, and so whether
Speaker 2: we can prove that she knew the toxicity is a
Speaker 2: different question. But I mean, death caps are highly toxic.
Speaker 2: People die every year from mushroom toxicity. There's four different
Speaker 2: topsins in it. It's really very brutal. You only need
Speaker 2: a very small amount to cause death depending on the
Speaker 2: person you know, health size, etc. All of that. But yeah,
Speaker 2: she certainly knew where death caps were growing. She originally
Speaker 2: denied having a habit of foraging and then later acknowledged that,
Speaker 2: which I think she started during COVID, that was a
Speaker 2: hobby that she developed.
Speaker 1: Okay, And I think police gathered the evidence with an
Speaker 1: expert on phones and triangulation of They did to locations
Speaker 1: where it was known that those type of mushrooms were growing.
Speaker 2: So they knew that she'd been to these websites which
Speaker 2: had actually specifically said where there are death caps, and
Speaker 2: then they could use a cell power data to place
Speaker 2: her in and around those areas for protracted amounts of time.
Speaker 1: Okay, So the case is building, but still very much
Speaker 1: a circumstantial case. And I think that the problem from
Speaker 1: a policing point of view, you've got with it this
Speaker 1: particular case, there's always an alternative hypothesis that it could
Speaker 1: have been in a tragic accident.
Speaker 2: Which is exactly what the defense said. This is just
Speaker 2: an awful foraging accident. And what's interesting here, and this
Speaker 2: would be good to hear your take on this. There
Speaker 2: was no alternative outcome, So if she was found not guilty,
Speaker 2: there was no manslaughter on the table. It was guilty
Speaker 2: or nothing, so she walked. Basically if she was found not.
Speaker 1: Guilty, guilty, So that takes a level of proof to
Speaker 1: a much higher level.
Speaker 2: Doesn't it Because three people are dead and a force
Speaker 2: almost died, and yet if she's found not guilty, there
Speaker 2: is no culpability there she walks free.
Speaker 1: Well, manslaughter would have been the option of she knew
Speaker 1: it was going to make them sick, but she never
Speaker 1: intended to kill them. It would have been easier, the
Speaker 1: bar would have been lower for the prosecutors to it
Speaker 1: was off the table. Yeah, well, so is it?
Speaker 2: As police? What do you make of that? I mean,
Speaker 2: is that do you think that was a choice they
Speaker 2: made or is that just when they charged her that's
Speaker 2: not something well they considered.
Speaker 1: I'm speaking hypothetically here, but I would I'd look at
Speaker 1: they've gathered the evidence that this meets the meets the
Speaker 1: level of murder, and that's that's what we're going for.
Speaker 2: The risk though massive rest.
Speaker 1: Or nothing, I suppose. But there was a lot of
Speaker 1: evidence about her being untruthful. As I understand too, version
Speaker 1: of events didn't quite add up. Now, it's one thing
Speaker 1: to have someone admit to a crime, and that makes
Speaker 1: it a lot easier, but if they're denying the crime,
Speaker 1: sometimes their denials and untruths can work heavily against them,
Speaker 1: and the weight or heavy weight can be placed on
Speaker 1: their untruthfulness.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and certainly that out during the trial. But the
Speaker 2: judge in this summation made very clear to the jury
Speaker 2: that she wasn't being she wasn't charged with lying. You know,
Speaker 2: she was charged with murder and attempted murder, and lying
Speaker 2: doesn't make you a murderer. But she then, obviously, you know,
Speaker 2: she gave evidence and the jury were then asked to
Speaker 2: believe her account even though she's saying, yes, I lied,
Speaker 2: and she had these reasons for lying, but she's trying
Speaker 2: to then convince them, Okay, I've lied, I've been caught
Speaker 2: out in all of these lies. But I'm telling you
Speaker 2: the truth now, and all of the witnesses of which
Speaker 2: they were like fifty odd and like nine weeks of
Speaker 2: evidence previous to that, that's all wrong. You have just
Speaker 2: got to believe my word, even though she was still
Speaker 2: lying on the stand, and she was caught out in
Speaker 2: lies on the stand. So how could the jury believe
Speaker 2: anything that she said when everything that she told them
Speaker 2: could be disproved? You know, even when she said how
Speaker 2: you know the reason that she didn't get she didn't
Speaker 2: get sick was apparently because she had bolimia, so she'd
Speaker 2: made herself vomit just after the meal. So therefore she
Speaker 2: was saying she hadn't actually ingested any of the toxin,
Speaker 2: or only a very minor amount for which you know,
Speaker 2: she said she felt unwell, but no evidence of that.
Speaker 2: But she said that she was having I think a
Speaker 2: gastric band fitted, and she gave them the name of
Speaker 2: a hospital. That clinic didn't offer that kind of surgery,
Speaker 2: and she had no appointment there. So everything she was
Speaker 2: still saying was lying. There's no evidence of her having
Speaker 2: believed it. Now. I know people lie about eating disorders.
Speaker 2: They do hide it. They're very good at hiding it
Speaker 2: because for many psychological reasons, often shame. But nobody in
Speaker 2: her sphere had any idea that she allegedly had this
Speaker 2: eating disorder, which would be unusual to be able to
Speaker 2: hide it from people. You know, you've been married to,
Speaker 2: et cetera. And yeah, this hospital for which she said
Speaker 2: she had an appointment knew nothing about her.
Speaker 1: I looking at the case in the police, the strength
Speaker 1: of the case would be able to being able to
Speaker 1: disprove all the information that provide. And the judge is
Speaker 1: quite right in warning the jury that lying is not
Speaker 1: the not the offense. But when you add it all up,
Speaker 1: these inconsistencies, and it's showing an intent right from the
Speaker 1: start to provide misinformation.
Speaker 2: Exactly.
Speaker 1: We're surmising what the jury, what's going through the jury's mind.
Speaker 1: But I would imagine looking at it from a police
Speaker 1: point of view, I'd want to be presenting all that
Speaker 1: evidence to the courts, to the jury and let them
Speaker 1: make their own assessment of it.
Speaker 2: Exactly. And they showed the original police interview in which
Speaker 2: she was lying, you know, saying that she didn't forage, etcetera.
Speaker 2: So you know she started from the very beginning. Now,
Speaker 2: I mean, you're a police officer, for god, I don't
Speaker 2: know how long people lie, don't they? Yes, they tell
Speaker 2: it because they're obviously trying to convince you of their story,
Speaker 2: even if they haven't done it. They might lie because
Speaker 2: they're worried they may bring something up. Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: I mean how often do they lie about stupid little
Speaker 2: things that you don't even care about, because you know
Speaker 2: they don't want to get in trouble over something else,
Speaker 2: you like, we're we're not in investigating that theft. I
Speaker 2: don't care what I want to know is how this
Speaker 2: person died, but they might still lie about it. So
Speaker 2: she was lying right from the beginning. But I think
Speaker 2: it was just the pleasor of lies. There was nothing
Speaker 2: that that woman said that was true.
Speaker 1: What were your observations, because you have a deep understanding
Speaker 1: about this world, what was your observations of what you
Speaker 1: saw that presented about her in the media watching the
Speaker 1: case play out?
Speaker 2: Well, I remember those we had a quick chat where
Speaker 2: we started. I remember that first interview I saw with
Speaker 2: her when she was standing by the car. I think
Speaker 2: at that stage it was a few days after and
Speaker 2: I think I think Gail, Heather, and Donn had already
Speaker 2: died by time she gave this interview. Ian was still
Speaker 2: a news coma and she was standing by the car.
Speaker 2: And I don't know whether you remember this one, but
Speaker 2: the press pack kind of surrounded her car at the
Speaker 2: house as she got out and she stood then she
Speaker 2: was kind of wiping her eyes and she was saying
Speaker 2: how distressed she was.
Speaker 3: Devastated by what's the loss of Donn. Donn is still
Speaker 3: in hospital, the loss of Anane and Heather and Gail.
Speaker 3: It were some of the best people that I've ever met.
Speaker 3: Gail was like.
Speaker 4: That I didn't have because my mom passed away four
Speaker 4: years ago and Gail's never been anything back good and Kline,
Speaker 4: to me and Heather were some of the best.
Speaker 2: People I've ever met. They never did anything wrong to me.
Speaker 4: I'm so devastating about what's happened, lost to the community
Speaker 4: and to the families, and to my own children have
Speaker 4: lost their grandmother.
Speaker 2: Can can you tell us a bit more about the lunch?
Speaker 3: What I can tell you.
Speaker 2: Is that I just can't fathom what has happened. I
Speaker 2: just can't fathom what has happened. And yet there were
Speaker 2: no tears on her fingers, and she kept kind of
Speaker 2: looking down, and it reminded me of a child play acting,
Speaker 2: and I was like, hmm. And I remember thinking, you
Speaker 2: shouldn't be talking the press. This is really not a
Speaker 2: good look for you. You're not doing yourself any favors. But
Speaker 2: she continued talking to the press after that, and I
Speaker 2: was thinking, I don't know who's advising you. She had
Speaker 2: a lawyer by this stage, but they need to advise
Speaker 2: you to stop talking to the press because the impression
Speaker 2: you're giving is a bad one. And if this ever
Speaker 2: ends up in trial, none of this is going away,
Speaker 2: like people are going to be rewatching these these interviews,
Speaker 2: and it was all about her. It was like, this
Speaker 2: is affecting me. I can't leave my home. You know,
Speaker 2: it's very difficult for me. Three people are dead, and
Speaker 2: there was no sense of any sympathy for them.
Speaker 1: For the victims, for the people. Yeah, and even if
Speaker 1: she wasn't involved in it, you would be if.
Speaker 2: I could to meal, if I could to meal, and
Speaker 2: several people are dying, and that's possible. Gary never eat
Speaker 2: at my house. I'm not very good at this, but
Speaker 2: would if it was an accident, because you know, I'm
Speaker 2: just that bad at it. You'd still can you imagine
Speaker 2: if you've caused that, the guilt you would feel causing
Speaker 2: that harm to people, And there was no sense of that.
Speaker 1: Definitely would would come across the other. The other thing
Speaker 1: about mothers like this, and I think this is why,
Speaker 1: and we touched on it when we first started speaking,
Speaker 1: that people see her as an average person and yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what.
Speaker 2: And a mother, a mother, that's what people keep saying
Speaker 2: to me. Could she do this? She's that this mother earth,
Speaker 2: you know, nurture is all mothers are, you know, kind generous,
Speaker 2: caring people while they haven't met mine. So I was like,
Speaker 2: I can understand how mothers could do it.
Speaker 1: I cringe when I hear people she couldn't do it
Speaker 1: because she's a mother, and she's a mother. What And
Speaker 1: in the jury system, that's part of what the police
Speaker 1: had got the work past. When I imagine a female
Speaker 1: has been charged with murdering, but she's a mother, How
Speaker 1: could she do this?
Speaker 2: Well, we don't say that about fathers, do we.
Speaker 1: Why not?
Speaker 2: You know you're going to father, You're going to a family
Speaker 2: annihilator like Rowing Baxter who killed Hannah Clark and the
Speaker 2: beautiful children. Nobody goes that he's a farmer, how could
Speaker 2: he do that? The other thing people have said to me,
Speaker 2: which is interesting, is well, what did Simon do for
Speaker 2: her to hate him this much? And I'm like, oh,
Speaker 2: you know, do you want to blame the victim anymore?
Speaker 1: Here?
Speaker 2: Again? Did we do that with Hannah Clark? Absolutely not,
Speaker 2: because that would have been appalling to say, well, it
Speaker 2: was clearly her fault. She really wound him up. Who
Speaker 2: would say that? But it's okay apparently for somebody to
Speaker 2: murder his family and somehow it's his fault because she's
Speaker 2: a woman. It's like, well, he must have done something. No, no,
Speaker 2: this is all on her. There is no reason that
Speaker 2: could possibly excuse what she has done.
Speaker 1: When we look at this case, looking at looking at
Speaker 1: motive and opportunity capability. Motive, so opportunity capability, you tick
Speaker 1: those boxes that the motive with this particular.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, that's the question, isn't it. Yeah?
Speaker 1: Well, and I think it's part of the fascination. Why
Speaker 1: would she kill? Because it's a chilling thing to do
Speaker 1: to sit there, like sometimes your murders are a reaction
Speaker 1: that someone loses control, loses their temper, lashes out something.
Speaker 2: Yeah, situation or explosive, yeah, in the moment.
Speaker 1: But this land is and we're working on the basis
Speaker 1: she's been convicted of it. This is something that takes
Speaker 1: a lot of planning and then that's just in the
Speaker 1: lead up to it and then consciously let that let
Speaker 1: the murder play out by feeding these people and to
Speaker 1: watch and it's.
Speaker 2: Chilling, it is. She had to prepare the bushrooms in
Speaker 2: that dehydrator, she cooked that meal. Now any stage she
Speaker 2: could have gone, actually, what am I doing?
Speaker 1: What am I doing?
Speaker 2: This is wrong? Like why would I do this. She
Speaker 2: then plated those meals up her separately to make sure
Speaker 2: she didn't get sick, and then she watched them eat
Speaker 2: it all while playing this happy families. It's chilling, it is,
Speaker 2: and so people keep saying, what's the motive? But then
Speaker 2: I pointed out to someone that I was like, well,
Speaker 2: even if she told us, which she's not going to
Speaker 2: write because she loves the control of this, and I
Speaker 2: think that's why she liked talking to the media. She
Speaker 2: was enjoying the attention. She was trying to control the narrative.
Speaker 2: But even if she told us what her motive was,
Speaker 2: there is no motive that can justify this. We're still
Speaker 2: going to be going what, you know, even if she said, oh,
Speaker 2: well Simon did this and they did this, We're still
Speaker 2: it's going to be, you know, inexplicable regardless of what
Speaker 2: she says, because you could never justify this ever. To
Speaker 2: sit there and kill people in cold in cold blood like.
Speaker 1: That that is, and watch them.
Speaker 2: And knowing they're going to die a horrible, painful, prolonged.
Speaker 1: Death, it is chilling. With the with the trial, did
Speaker 1: any of that come out? The motive?
Speaker 2: What?
Speaker 1: What did the prosecution put forward for motive, like, you
Speaker 1: don't have to prove mot and they didn't.
Speaker 2: They didn't suggest a motive, which is difficult though because
Speaker 2: everyone wants a motive. The jury wants a motive, right,
Speaker 2: and it's easier to prove a case if you can
Speaker 2: suggest a motive. But they didn't. There wasn't There wasn't
Speaker 2: a motive.
Speaker 1: Well, it's something. The motive is what you look to
Speaker 1: pep steer you towards the suspect in the murder investigation,
Speaker 1: but it's not the proof of murder. You don't have
Speaker 1: to prove the motive. But the trial, the trial went
Speaker 1: for nine or ten weeks?
Speaker 2: Was it ten weeks? Nine weeks of the prosecution case,
Speaker 2: And when they didn't speak to motives specifically, they did
Speaker 2: look at the intra familiar relationships. They did put some
Speaker 2: text messages up to show that there was some tensions,
Speaker 2: so they kind of they looked at family dynamics without
Speaker 2: actually saying a motive. So that was kind of as
Speaker 2: far as they went in that area. Yeah, nine weeks.
Speaker 2: I think one of the police officers on the stand
Speaker 2: for like eight day solid just just one officer, fifty
Speaker 2: or so witnesses across those nine weeks and then Aaron
Speaker 2: Patterson gave evidence very unusual, right.
Speaker 1: Unusual because for people that don't understand, you're not obliged
Speaker 1: as an accused person to give evidence at the trial.
Speaker 1: And then murder trials, it's very very rare that the
Speaker 1: accused gets in and gives evidence.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they because a right to retain their silence.
Speaker 1: Well, and it opens up to cross examination. So that's
Speaker 1: the thing, right, once you're in there and then you
Speaker 1: open the doors and the prosecutor that can start asking
Speaker 1: all sorts of questions and.
Speaker 2: No holds barred, Right, you're literally open to that. And
Speaker 2: that's that's in essence what happened. So she gave evidence
Speaker 2: for a few days, can't remember how many. In the
Speaker 2: end it was over a week, I think, and she
Speaker 2: did quite well. So she was very controlled, very measured.
Speaker 2: She showed appropriate levels of emotion, but it wasn't histrionic,
Speaker 2: you know, it wasn't over the top. But across she
Speaker 2: seemed aggravated with some of the questions. She came across
Speaker 2: sometimes as quite self righteous. And I interviewed for Motive
Speaker 2: a Method with Tim a cup of the journalists with
Speaker 2: their every single day right they watched their entire trial,
Speaker 2: So they watched the jury throughout this, and their impression
Speaker 2: was actually it kind of oscillated across the time which
Speaker 2: way the jury were going. But when she was being
Speaker 2: cross examined, that's when they think she lost the jury
Speaker 2: because she got combative. She was trying to outwit the prosecutor,
Speaker 2: she was trying to show them up. She was like,
Speaker 2: it was almost like she just wanted to win. She
Speaker 2: just wanted to control it. She just wanted to have
Speaker 2: her say and prove she was smarter. Yeah. Well, look,
Speaker 2: people are trying to diagnose her, right, but I'm hoping
Speaker 2: for sentencing she will actually be formally assessed by sight. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so I've been really trying to steer away from kind
Speaker 2: of making commentary on her individually. However, if we broaden
Speaker 2: that out, the kind of person who always thinks they're smarter,
Speaker 2: always has to win, always wants their say and things.
Speaker 2: In the end, you know they are better than everyone
Speaker 2: else and smarter than everyone else, does show those narcissistic traits,
Speaker 2: and you must have come across that way.
Speaker 1: Well, it's interesting when we break down the nature of
Speaker 1: the crime she knew, Like quite often there's a murder
Speaker 1: and people don't ever expect to be spoken to by police.
Speaker 1: But she backed herself that clearly police are going to
Speaker 1: be involved in a situation where three people died intending
Speaker 1: for a fourth person to die. She knew she was
Speaker 1: going to be cross examined, so that tells me something
Speaker 1: about she was going to be interviewed and spoken to
Speaker 1: by police. That tells me something about her that she
Speaker 1: knew this was coming. So if I was approaching her
Speaker 1: from an investigative point of view, I'd be thinking, Okay,
Speaker 1: what do we got here. She knows that we would
Speaker 1: be speaking to her, so she's prepared for it as
Speaker 1: much as she can. It changes the dynamics, so she's
Speaker 1: backing herself to pull the wool over the police eyes
Speaker 1: and everyone else. It's looking the media. It's interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely. I think she thought she could outsmart everyone.
Speaker 2: She could convince the police it was an accident she
Speaker 2: could complete, She could convince the media, the public. But
Speaker 2: I think the media interviews were about the fact she
Speaker 2: was enjoying it, the attention. She was enjoying the attention.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well to me, and this comes without any qualifications whatsoever.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't surprise me that someone that's capable of
Speaker 1: committing a crime like this for some bizarre reason with
Speaker 1: also like the attention that forthcoming and yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: playing the victim. Look I'm going picked on.
Speaker 2: Oh she is very good at that. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: that kind of you know, people describe her as meek.
Speaker 2: You know, she kind of stands there looking quiet and
Speaker 2: looking down and she's got you know, you literally would
Speaker 2: you could live next door to that woman for twenty
Speaker 2: years and not ever have noticed her. You know, she's
Speaker 2: just so forgettable. Yet underneath that there is something incredibly
Speaker 2: dark that could plan a crime of this nature and
Speaker 2: go through with it and still show zero remorse afterwards.
Speaker 1: Well that's the thing, Like she's got to back herself
Speaker 1: that I can do this, so I can sit in
Speaker 1: the room knowing hard questions are going to be asked
Speaker 1: and I'm not going to break under those. Under that interrogation,
Speaker 1: what was the police officer You said the police officer
Speaker 1: was in the witness box for eight days. That is
Speaker 1: a very long long time. And I would think with
Speaker 1: a case like this, a lot of it's medical based
Speaker 1: circumstantial evidence. So the credibility of the police generally when
Speaker 1: you spend a long time in there, it's because they're
Speaker 1: trying to rip you apart.
Speaker 2: I think which one that was. I think that was
Speaker 2: the officer. It was looking at the cell tower data,
Speaker 2: except right, I think so. Somebody again may correct me,
Speaker 2: but yeah, certainly, you know, they interrogated the evidence, and
Speaker 2: so people have been asking me as well. You know,
Speaker 2: obviously she's probably in a defense a going to try
Speaker 2: and seek leave to appear. Whether they get it or
Speaker 2: not is a different question. And also, you know the
Speaker 2: jury were out for ages. Does that mean anything? But
Speaker 2: the jury weren't out for that long. It was six
Speaker 2: and a half days. They had fifty experts to go
Speaker 2: through the transcripts. You know, nine weeks our ten weeks
Speaker 2: including hers of evidence. That's not a long time. Is
Speaker 2: it not a jury to be out? It may have
Speaker 2: felt interminable to the rest of us waiting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think it's an extraordinarily long time for
Speaker 1: a relatively complex metal like that. Was there anything that
Speaker 1: came out in the trial that surprised you like you
Speaker 1: didn't expect?
Speaker 2: Well, the biggest thing that surprised me was her taking
Speaker 2: the stand. In some ways, that was the bit that
Speaker 2: I was like, hmm, because I mean, I'm just guessing.
Speaker 2: I don't know, but I would imagine her defense counsel
Speaker 2: had suggested against that because of the cross exam issue.
Speaker 2: But then when I thought about it, I thought, yeah,
Speaker 2: remembering back to those interviews you did, I can see
Speaker 2: her wanting to do that. Kind of fitted with the
Speaker 2: kind of person. But I mean, that was probably the
Speaker 2: most striking thing of the trial, was her choosing to
Speaker 2: take the stand and the combative nature of the evidence
Speaker 2: at her questioning your answers at the end, I think
Speaker 2: was what I found most interesting. I think she is
Speaker 2: a you know, putting aside the horrible thing that she's done,
Speaker 2: horrible not being a strong enough word, obviously, then she's
Speaker 2: a really interesting character to study because she's you know,
Speaker 2: nobody had any sense of this. You know, her family
Speaker 2: were totally innocent to what was being planned, and she
Speaker 2: must be a pretty good actress to get away with that,
Speaker 2: don't you think to keep that to herself.
Speaker 1: Look, I think it was the fact that she's backed
Speaker 1: herself in to I can pull this crime off and
Speaker 1: get away with it, because I'm no I'm going to
Speaker 1: be questioned to be but I'm going to be able
Speaker 1: to manage it. She my understanding, she's relatively intelligent. She's
Speaker 1: another complais so yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, she seems I mean, certainly in the way
Speaker 2: she handled the questions when she was on trial, especially
Speaker 2: the Crown questions. If she didn't understand something, she asked
Speaker 2: for clarification, so she came across I mean, she seems Yeah,
Speaker 2: she seems intelligent. But then some of the things she
Speaker 2: did was so dumb, like getting rid of the dehydrator
Speaker 2: at a tip where there's CCTV evidence where they can
Speaker 2: ping her phone to going even though so, but then
Speaker 2: on the other hand, she's got two mobile phones, one
Speaker 2: of which they didn't find, so she's wiping sim cards,
Speaker 2: but she doesn't think of the CCTV at the tip.
Speaker 2: So in some ways she's smart and in some way
Speaker 2: super dumb. But it's almost like she's just so arrogant
Speaker 2: and that she thinks she's going to just get away
Speaker 2: with it.
Speaker 1: I read the reports in the media that she was
Speaker 1: a bit of a true crime buff.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, yeah, that's apparently the case loved her. True
Speaker 2: crime we can't talk.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, I'm glad there are true crime buffs.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, right, Otherwise we would both be out of
Speaker 2: a job.
Speaker 1: Let's nothing encourage people to put it in practice. But yeah,
Speaker 1: that's so, that's fascination. But the thing that really gets
Speaker 1: me is the amount of preparation and planning for this.
Speaker 1: And we discussed it, but I keep coming back to it.
Speaker 2: Bym the dehydrator foraging the mushrooms, months in advance, months
Speaker 2: in advance drying them. You know, this is months, if
Speaker 2: not longer, of planning. And the under two phones too,
Speaker 2: And I know that two phones aren't necessarily suspicious. And
Speaker 2: we had that conversation once from around you remember some
Speaker 2: of we have two phones, and I was like, that
Speaker 2: looks shady, and you said I've got two phones, and
Speaker 2: I was like, you so have I but that person
Speaker 2: doesn't look like the kind of person you would have
Speaker 2: two phones.
Speaker 1: See, it's important not to judge people.
Speaker 2: I know, but we both you know, but you have
Speaker 2: a work phone and you have your private phone. But
Speaker 2: we also know that people have like a work phone
Speaker 2: and a drug dealer phone. Right, most standard people don't
Speaker 2: have two phones because it's a pain, isn't it juggling
Speaker 2: both phones. It's annoying, But I know he does it
Speaker 2: if they don't.
Speaker 1: Have to again. And you and you've talked about her
Speaker 1: being an average person in the framework of a middle
Speaker 1: aged lady, a mother living in the she need two phones?
Speaker 1: Why the two phones? With the jury, I think a
Speaker 1: big a difficult point for the jury is to get
Speaker 1: over the fact that a woman sitting in the dock
Speaker 1: charge with a horrendous crime murdering three people, attempting to
Speaker 1: murder a fourth person, and the nature of the crime.
Speaker 1: In my experience, juries always struggle with that because their
Speaker 1: perception is a mother.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they look at her like and you look,
Speaker 2: you do you look at it and you go, really,
Speaker 2: you know, I think they think somebody who could commit
Speaker 2: mass murder because she is now formerly a mass murder
Speaker 2: as she killed you know, three people in the same event.
Speaker 2: They expect them to like have horns and a tail
Speaker 2: and look quite look evil, right, like to be able
Speaker 2: to We like to think that we can pick them
Speaker 2: out and we can identify them because that makes us
Speaker 2: feel safer.
Speaker 1: Well, I think it ties in with what we all
Speaker 1: learned growing up stranger danger and yeah, yeah, person.
Speaker 2: That person's odd, you know, there's something wrong with them.
Speaker 2: Avoid that person. And this person sitting in front of
Speaker 2: them on the stand. Is this average woman, this mother,
Speaker 2: this you know, she's the husband and the family and
Speaker 2: she's just cut this lunch and you're and they're trying
Speaker 2: to see a monster there. The perception is there isn't one,
Speaker 2: and so they're like they're trying to gel these two things.
Speaker 2: It's very boring looking woman against one of the most
Speaker 2: infamous crimes now in modern Australian criminal history.
Speaker 1: But that, I think is why it polarized people, because
Speaker 1: I formed a view when bits and pieces of information
Speaker 1: were coming out and the amound of people said, Oh,
Speaker 1: she couldn't have done that.
Speaker 2: I look at her, how could she have done?
Speaker 1: And she was baking?
Speaker 2: Could she have planned? Have you seen her?
Speaker 1: She was baking a pie.
Speaker 2: It's it's it seems ridiculous. And I know I laughed then,
Speaker 2: and I think that's it's so ridiculous, it's almost funny, right,
Speaker 2: And I think that's where a lot of the memes
Speaker 2: have come from, and a lot of the jokes. It's
Speaker 2: been various comedians making jokes and I get that, and
Speaker 2: I've seen quite a few of them on social media
Speaker 2: and whatever. And somebody even was at a restaurant and
Speaker 2: their special was beef Wellington. They were abroad and they
Speaker 2: sent it to me and went dinners sorted. So there's
Speaker 2: this general now like joke atmosphere. But then what you
Speaker 2: said at the beginning, they've forgotten that three people died
Speaker 2: horrendously a fourth died. And imagine the impact now on
Speaker 2: Simon Patterson, the Patterson children in Wilkinson, the community. It's
Speaker 2: a really small little place. They were a church community
Speaker 2: in Wilkinson's the pasta that the pasta there, and imagine
Speaker 2: the impact on those people. So whilst everyone's joking because
Speaker 2: it seems so bizarre, actually this is going to change
Speaker 2: these people's lives forever. They're never going to recover fully
Speaker 2: from this. Their lives will never be the same.
Speaker 1: I think it's important that we get a cross set
Speaker 1: because there's this disconnect and I think every one of
Speaker 1: us would have heard the joke about the mushroom pie
Speaker 1: and different things because it just became part of the
Speaker 1: fabric of our community or society.
Speaker 2: And I think it still will. Yeah, I think there's
Speaker 2: going to be you know, we're going to take this
Speaker 2: on as you know, as part of our social consciousness
Speaker 2: now going forward.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's the impact that's had. But definitely we
Speaker 1: shouldn't lose sight of the fact what a horrendous crime
Speaker 1: it is and the people's lives have been taken and
Speaker 1: the people's lives that have been affected. Women who kill?
Speaker 1: What's I've got my views on it, and I'll discuss
Speaker 1: a couple of people that have been convicted of crimes.
Speaker 1: What's your take on Obviously more men commit further than
Speaker 1: than women, but what's your take on women who kill?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think women generally kill largely for different reasons too.
Speaker 2: Men'll be interested in your take on that. Men. We're
Speaker 2: obviously talking into personal crimes, so you know ex's partners,
Speaker 2: especially when they're leaving. We know that domestic vi aren'ce
Speaker 2: a massive thing. Men seem to be very I would
Speaker 2: say the ego driven when it comes out. You know,
Speaker 2: women who leave them, they just can't accept that are
Speaker 2: being left, and you know they want to be in control,
Speaker 2: and a lot of those kind of domestic homicides happen
Speaker 2: around that kind of rage and that ego driven crime.
Speaker 2: Women seem to kill for different reasons, sometimes financial reasons,
Speaker 2: sometimes jealousy, rage, but they tend to do it in
Speaker 2: a different way as well. Poison is actually quite a
Speaker 2: common method of choice. They don't tend, don't. I'm not
Speaker 2: saying never. They don't tend to stab people or shoot people,
Speaker 2: strangle people, for example. Obviously it's harder for a woman
Speaker 2: strangle a man generally, but poison being a method of choice,
Speaker 2: are a little more hands off with their methods. But
Speaker 2: fortunately less women have those inclinations than men, although obviously
Speaker 2: women do capable of Absolutely, yeah, absolutely came.
Speaker 1: I look at a couple of cases that I was
Speaker 1: involved in the aware of, but one of the cases,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if you're aware of it. Natasha Darcy,
Speaker 1: Beth Darcy, the widow of Waltcher. She was on up
Speaker 1: near Newcastle Whale or says knock up around that area,
Speaker 1: and she killed her partner by poisoning him with horse steroids.
Speaker 1: And that was something that she was for all intents
Speaker 1: and purposes, someone that looked like fitted into society, and
Speaker 1: she ended up murdering, murdering her partner.
Speaker 2: I mean, how many people did you arrest? Actually, if
Speaker 2: you just looked at them, if they walked past you
Speaker 2: on the street, you'd go, they look weird. They don't right,
Speaker 2: they look so normal. And that's when, especially when there's
Speaker 2: people are worried about children and they go, oh, the
Speaker 2: kids shouldn't talk to that guy down there. He looks
Speaker 2: really dodgy. The dodgy diet guy down the road is
Speaker 2: not who they should be fearful of, because the children
Speaker 2: are going to pick up any discomfort. They're the ones
Speaker 2: you need to worry about. Are the ones you look
Speaker 2: absolutely normal, who were teaching your kids' sport or working
Speaker 2: in their school or their daycare. Want to kind of
Speaker 2: contemporary example, it's not the weird guy down the road.
Speaker 2: He hasn't done anything. He's just unusual.
Speaker 1: Well, it just shows that you can't really judge people
Speaker 1: what they're capable of. With that that particular case, with
Speaker 1: the Darcy case, this is my recollection of it, that
Speaker 1: she attempted to poison her husband before her previous husband,
Speaker 1: she attempted to poison him and on her computer they
Speaker 1: were access to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not laughing. How often does that happen? Why
Speaker 2: do they leave it on that How to poison somebody
Speaker 2: with horse tranquilized? Really?
Speaker 1: How to cover that up? But the bizarre, the bizarre
Speaker 1: thing with that case her new partner when she poisoned him.
Speaker 1: The ambulance officer was her ex husband that turned up
Speaker 1: to God, are you.
Speaker 2: So she tried to kill the ambulance officer who turned
Speaker 2: up to treat you.
Speaker 1: The ambulance officer was her previous husband. So it was
Speaker 1: a fascinating fascinating So she.
Speaker 2: Was a black widow then, and actually with black widows
Speaker 2: who were trying to bump off their husbands, there is
Speaker 2: often a history of attempts or previous husbands that have
Speaker 2: died that may have been that may have been ruled
Speaker 2: as natural causes or accidental and then funnily, there's another
Speaker 2: death and it was similar circumstances, and these poor unfortunate
Speaker 2: people have both managed to overdose on horse tranquilizers.
Speaker 1: How unusual the unusual.
Speaker 2: Think what was her what was her motive?
Speaker 1: It was? I think it was financial on that one.
Speaker 1: That was he was a rich farmer, relatively rich, and
Speaker 1: it was an opportunity to gain.
Speaker 2: With those black widows, that's often that the it is
Speaker 2: a financial motive, and they quite often involve other men
Speaker 2: that are easily coerced. There seems to be a type
Speaker 2: of man that could be taken in by these women.
Speaker 2: Women can get them to do whatever they want.
Speaker 1: We often, yeah, they can manipulate to me, because.
Speaker 2: We're not dumping off the new one. I'm not saying it, Gary,
Speaker 2: but yeah, okay, I'll let you say that.
Speaker 1: I'm just agreed, we're not that smart.
Speaker 2: They're easily manipulated by women.
Speaker 1: I would Well, I just think it's important that people
Speaker 1: understand that women are capable of these type of crimes,
Speaker 1: and they always.
Speaker 2: They assume then that there's something in their background which
Speaker 2: led them to do it. And there may be mitigating circumstances,
Speaker 2: you know, child abuse or whatever. And that's the other
Speaker 2: thing people have asked me about in pattern. It's like, well,
Speaker 2: do you think there's something so damaged in her background,
Speaker 2: in her childhood that made her this way? We look
Speaker 2: when it's a woman, we look for in some ways,
Speaker 2: we look for excuses why they've done what they We
Speaker 2: can't accept that they are just a deeply I mean,
Speaker 2: I never use the word evil, but you know, to
Speaker 2: kill people, three people in that way, and tend to
Speaker 2: kill the force that that is his close as it
Speaker 2: would get right. So, but we can't accept that. When
Speaker 2: it's a woman. We look for reasons why they must
Speaker 2: be that way, it must be Simon's fault. It must
Speaker 2: be something in her background. You know, maybe it's actually
Speaker 2: just her.
Speaker 1: It's difficult to understand that might be the maternal part
Speaker 1: of people, that the mother is there caring for, caring
Speaker 1: for kids, and let's see experience. They said, other lady
Speaker 1: that we had the detective that went to the crime scene,
Speaker 1: that was horrendous. Catherine Mary Knight.
Speaker 2: Oh yes, yes, Now she did have a very very
Speaker 2: damaged childhood. Katherine Knight. Yes, but she obviously killed her
Speaker 2: husband in an extremely brutal way. That would have been
Speaker 2: two thousand. Catherine Knight killed her husband. Yeah, she stabbed him.
Speaker 2: She stabbed him a multiple times. She then skinned him.
Speaker 2: This is a bit for anyone sensitive listening. This is
Speaker 2: not great. But she then hung his skin up and decapitated,
Speaker 2: cooked several parts of him and was going to feed
Speaker 2: his children from a previous relationship. She was actually going
Speaker 2: to feed them to him. Fortunately, thank god the police,
Speaker 2: the police got there before that happened. But the plates
Speaker 2: and everything were there, and she had it all like
Speaker 2: cooking on the stove or something. Yeah, I mean I've
Speaker 2: heard from other offices that was an incredibly distressing scene.
Speaker 1: Exactly that that was horrific. But I bring those examples
Speaker 1: up only in that, Yeah, with what we're talking with
Speaker 1: Aaron Pedison, like, there are many ways and women do
Speaker 1: commit crimes, crimes like this, and I think we need
Speaker 1: to have an understanding yep.
Speaker 2: And I think Catherine Knight had attempted to kill previous
Speaker 2: partners before as well. I think there was a history
Speaker 2: of that.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, I think you're right on that there was.
Speaker 2: And she has got a full life terriff, so she
Speaker 2: will never be released. I think she was the first
Speaker 2: woman in Australia who was given a full life tarriff. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: so no possibility of she will never be released.
Speaker 1: Well, the nature of the nature of the crime, I
Speaker 1: think that's appropriate in the circumstances.
Speaker 2: Yes, but yes, absolutely taking.
Speaker 1: Away from this whole the mushroom murder case, and you
Speaker 1: mentioned that people identify it. What's it say about our
Speaker 1: society that we're so fascinated and interested in this particular case.
Speaker 2: Well, well, obviously there's the interest in true crime which
Speaker 2: we mentioned, which keeps us both employed fortunately, and I
Speaker 2: think that you know, I think it may it has
Speaker 2: gone to far in some ways in that a lot
Speaker 2: of the time we do forget the victims, and I
Speaker 2: think we'd kind of started to work on that. I
Speaker 2: think things that improve, but this case has really shone
Speaker 2: a light on that that. Actually, I think crime is,
Speaker 2: especially violent crime, is very normalized. We're very used to it,
Speaker 2: We're very used to talking about it and hearing it,
Speaker 2: and it doesn't have the same emotional impact that it
Speaker 2: used to. And yeah, I worry that we're becoming a
Speaker 2: little too entertained as opposed to horrified by it.
Speaker 1: Well, you mentioned about the horrific nature of the death
Speaker 1: that those people suffered.
Speaker 2: I can't even imagine prolonged and Simon watched that. Simon
Speaker 2: had to watch his mother die, his other family members die,
Speaker 2: didn't know if his dad was going to die, and
Speaker 2: so did the Patterson children.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's horrific.
Speaker 2: If you talk about mothering instincts, who would who would
Speaker 2: do something that they know their children are going to
Speaker 2: have to watch their family die horrendous, torturous deaths and
Speaker 2: then how are they ever going to get over that?
Speaker 1: Well, it's yeah, there's a ripple effect with any any murder,
Speaker 1: and yeah, passes on to generations. Unfortunately, I think that
Speaker 1: the public it's almost a snicker. That's a pie and
Speaker 1: poisoning that I don't fully understand the horrendous nature of
Speaker 1: this and the mentality of a person that carry that
Speaker 1: crime out. So I think that gives people permission to
Speaker 1: sort of snicker or laugh at the crime, not fully
Speaker 1: appreciating the nature of the crime.
Speaker 2: Well, I hope actually that that might shift when we
Speaker 2: get to sentencing, because some of the family may take
Speaker 2: the opportunity to read their victim impact statements, which they
Speaker 2: know they can, or they may not choose to do it,
Speaker 2: and it's entirely up to them. But I mean, you
Speaker 2: will have heard hundreds. They're very impactful, aren't they. You know,
Speaker 2: when the families do read those or someone needs to
Speaker 2: read them. And so when we hear the words from
Speaker 2: the people who have been harmed most by this, obviously
Speaker 2: except the disease victims, those who are left who are
Speaker 2: having to live with this, when we hear their words
Speaker 2: and they're reported, maybe then people will get a sense
Speaker 2: of the harm that's been caused and that it's actually
Speaker 2: not a mean to share on social media.
Speaker 1: Well, I hope so. And there is an important thing
Speaker 1: with victim impact states. It was actually a murder investigation
Speaker 1: I was involved in early in my career Island camp Lay,
Speaker 1: and that was the first time that victim impact statement
Speaker 1: was allowed in court on sentencing. And I know the
Speaker 1: fueral from the and the reluctance from the legal fraternity
Speaker 1: to have this. Well, you know, this is not the
Speaker 1: place for victims to comment. We don't care what it is
Speaker 1: the place there, well exactly. And I sat there and
Speaker 1: watched and it was the first time a victim impact
Speaker 1: statement was read out in court, and it was so powerful,
Speaker 1: and I think it puts in perspective what we're talking
Speaker 1: about here with this particular crime, and the.
Speaker 2: Whole purpose of them is to give the victims and
Speaker 2: their families, you know, the secondary victims to murders, etc.
Speaker 2: A chance to share have their voice because they didn't
Speaker 2: have it. They're witnesses in the criminal justice system, aren't they.
Speaker 2: They're not front and center. It's not a victim justice system.
Speaker 2: It's a criminal justice system. It's focused on the criminal
Speaker 2: and the crime or the accused of the crime. So
Speaker 2: it was meant to give them as of ownership of
Speaker 2: process and voice in that and so I can't think
Speaker 2: anywhere more appropriate then obviously the jury can't hear them
Speaker 2: predecision because you you know it would it would influence them.
Speaker 2: But for the judge who's not going to be influenced
Speaker 2: by those impact statements, it's you know, it gives them
Speaker 2: that chance to be heard maybe the first and only time.
Speaker 1: You're quite right, and they're truated. And it's so confusing
Speaker 1: when families have murdered victims are going through the court
Speaker 1: process because they feel like they're sitting on the sideline.
Speaker 1: They've got no in and they are they've got no input,
Speaker 1: there's no discussion, They're kept in the dark about so
Speaker 1: many things. So it is a good thing that it's
Speaker 1: evolved to the victim impact statement. But yeah, well, let's
Speaker 1: let's on this encourage people to have a listen to
Speaker 1: the impact that this crime has had. Horrendous crime, three people,
Speaker 1: as you said, a mass murderer, and.
Speaker 2: You and I know that it will continue to have.
Speaker 2: I mean, how many families do you know that you
Speaker 2: know the murder may have happened forty fifty years even
Speaker 2: and I'm not exaggerating. I've work with family for oh god,
Speaker 2: maybe about eight years now, and they lost their sister
Speaker 2: fifty two years ago. Now and it's had intergenerational trauma,
Speaker 2: Like people who don't even know her know the story
Speaker 2: and it's affected them because no one's ever been brought
Speaker 2: to justice. They don't know what happened, they don't know why,
Speaker 2: They just know she was brutally murdered, and it still
Speaker 2: traumatizes them.
Speaker 1: That's said when you see it, and I've seen it
Speaker 1: on quite a few cases where the trauma gets passed
Speaker 1: on to the next generation when they're looking for answers,
Speaker 1: looking to find that who's responsible, and the kids are
Speaker 1: carrying the weight of the parents trying to find the
Speaker 1: answers to the murder of their uncle or auntie or
Speaker 1: down the track.
Speaker 2: But the family's identity shifts around the fact that they've
Speaker 2: had someone want some when they love murdered, and it
Speaker 2: becomes it's a central pillar of who that family is,
Speaker 2: part of their core identity if especially if they don't
Speaker 2: get answers. And so I think people don't understand that
Speaker 2: this is a news story. Now it's going to drop
Speaker 2: off the radar until the next part of the legal process.
Speaker 2: For this family, they will live this every single day
Speaker 2: for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 1: Powerful message to to get across so well, we might
Speaker 1: we might leave it. Leave it there. On that note,
Speaker 1: I think that is a powerful, powerful message. It's always
Speaker 1: great and I always enjoy having a chat with you,
Speaker 1: and it's always informative.
Speaker 2: So do you have anything else to apologize for or
Speaker 2: admit you before? I'm sure I'll be able to think
Speaker 2: of something next time. I'll think I'll think of something
Speaker 2: else you were wrong about, and I'll remind you.
Speaker 1: You don't have to highlight my failings blatantly. Obviously I
Speaker 1: enjoy it. Actually, Okay, well, I've said at the start,
Speaker 1: I don't have to say it again. I was I
Speaker 1: don't have to say I was wrong.
Speaker 2: They heard it. People want to replay that. It's there
Speaker 2: in perpetuity.
Speaker 1: Highlight reel from my catch killers I was wrong, Okay,
Speaker 1: call it that. Okay, Well, we'll catch up soon, I hope.
Speaker 1: I hope your podcast with Tim Watson Monroe is a
Speaker 1: method and motive is going well, and we'll have to
Speaker 1: catch up soon and make sure Tim encourage us to Tim.
Speaker 2: And Duncan getting us into trouble again.
Speaker 1: It's never our fault. It's always okay.
Speaker 2: Good to talk to you, Thanks very much, by Thanksgaring