Mushrooms are at the center of a major Australian murder case
A woman is on trial in Australia for hosting a lunch in 2023 that left three people dead.
Erin Patterson has been charged with three counts of murder and is accused of purposely serving a beef Wellington made with poisonous death cap mushrooms, according to The Washington Post.
Patterson has pleaded not guilty and her legal team has described the deadly meal as 'a terrible accident,' per The Washington Post.
Death cap mushrooms are another name for poisonous Amanita phalloides mushrooms.
The toxins of death cap mushrooms target the liver and kidneys, according to the BC Centre for Disease Control. If you ingest the mushrooms, initial symptoms such as nausea and vomiting appear six to twelve hours after ingestion.
Your health deceptively appears to improve after those symptoms, but that's when your vital organs are actually being targeted by the toxins, the article said.
You'll become 'very ill, experiencing jaundice and seizures, followed by coma, and sometimes culminating in death' several days later, per the BCCDC.
The mortality rate following consumption and 'prompt hospital treatment' is 10% to 30%.
Cooking does not destroy the mushroom's toxins.
On July 29, 2023, Patterson prepared beef Wellington for a lunch. Her guests were all relatives of her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, The Washington Post reported.
In the days after the lunch, Simon Patterson's parents, Don and Gail Patterson, died, as did Gail Patterson's sister, Heather Wilkinson.
Wilkinson's husband, Ian Wilkinson, who was also a guest, spent weeks recovering in the hospital and ultimately survived, according to the Post.
Erin Patterson also invited her estranged husband to the meal, but he declined to attend.
Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson all died of 'altered liver function and multiple organ failure due to Amanita mushroom poisoning,' NPR reported.
In August 2023, Erin Patterson said she was 'devastated' that the mushrooms caused the deaths of her 'loved ones,' per a statement shared with Australia's ABC.
'I am now devastated to think that these mushrooms may have contributed to the illness suffered by my loved ones. I really want to repeat that I had absolutely no reason to hurt these people whom I loved,' she said.
In addition to alleging that she intentionally poisoned her guests, prosecutors have accused Erin Patterson of making up a cancer diagnosis, which she used as the pretense for the lunch, of visiting locations known to have death cap mushrooms beforehand and of getting rid of the food processor she used, according to The Washington Post.
She is also accused of not eating the same beef Wellington as her guests and covering up the poisoning by 'pretending to suffer similar symptoms' as her guests, per NPR.
Patterson's legal team has said her questioned actions stemmed from panic.
'She was overwhelmed by the fact that these four people had become so ill because of the food she'd served to them,' defense barrister Colin Mandy said during opening arguments, per The Washington Post.
The trial in Australia has wrapped up its fourth week and is expected to conclude in June.
This is not the first time someone has died after consuming death cap mushrooms.
In 2013, a 57-year-old woman in England died after using the mushrooms in a soup she had prepared, as the BBC reported.
The woman's husband also ate the soup and was hospitalized but survived.
In December 2016, 14 people, including an 18-month-old child, across five California counties were hospitalized as a result of consuming death caps, according to The Weather Channel.
Three of the 14 died, and the child 'developed cerebral edema and suffered permanent neurologic sequelae.' At least three of the individuals needed a liver transplant.
A more recent case in California happened on December 31 in the town of Salinas.
Three individuals were hospitalized after eating the mushrooms that they had purchased from a vendor on the side of the road, KSBW Action News reported.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
17 hours ago
- The Hill
Former White House doctor: Biden physician should have tested for cognitive decline
A former doctor for the White House under the Obama administration said former President Biden should have been tested for cognitive decline in his final year in office, given his age. Jeffrey Kuhlman said performing such a test on Biden would have shed light on the former president's mental state and ability to serve another four years. 'Sometimes those closest to the tree miss the forest,' Kuhlman told The Washington Post. Biden's long-term doctor, Kevin O'Connor, didn't perform a cognitive test on the leader during his fourth year in office, as White House officials said formal results weren't needed to prove the former president's mental soundness. 'The president's doctor has said, if you look at what this president, who is also the commander-in-chief — he passes a cognitive test every day — every day, as he moves from one topic to another topic, understanding the granular level of these topics,' former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said during a February briefing last year. 'You saw him talk about fighting crime today. Tomorrow, he's going to go to the border. Next week, he's going to give a State of the Union Address,' she added. O'Connor was recently subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) to address why a cognitive test wasn't given. Biden traveled often while serving, including taking two international trips prior to his first presidential debate with President Trump. 'This is a very rigorous job. And the president has been able to do — do this job every day for the past three years,' Jean-Pierre previously told reporters from the podium. However, Kuhlman said the public deserved to have evidence that Biden was mentally sharp, arguing that health reports should include a total overview of a president's well-being. 'It shouldn't be just health, it should be fitness,' Kuhlman said. 'Fitness is: Do you have that robust mind, body, spirit that you can do this physically, mentally, emotionally demanding job?' Months after leaving office, Biden was diagnosed with prostate cancer amid reports alleging he suffered from mental decay while serving as commander-in-chief. 'Cancer touches us all. Like so many of you, Jill and I have learned that we are strongest in the broken places,' he wrote in a post on X. 'Thank you for lifting us up with love and support.'


Black America Web
a day ago
- Black America Web
Mayo Tears Or Real Fears: Supreme Court Rules For Straight Woman In Job Discrimination Suit
Source: The Washington Post / Getty In a unanimous Supreme Court decision that's already sending ripples through workplace law and DEI discourse, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Marlean Ames, a straight woman who claimed she was discriminated against for her sexual orientation after being passed over for promotion in favor of gay colleagues. According to reports, the high court rejected a previously accepted legal standard that required members of majority groups to meet a higher burden of proof when alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The ruling, penned by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, made it clear that equal protection under employment discrimination law does not shift depending on whether the plaintiff is part of a historically marginalized group or not. 'Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs,' Jackson wrote. And with that decision, what many had considered a quietly accepted court norm was struck down. The decision comes amid growing backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs nationwide, with critics arguing such initiatives increasingly favor the historically excluded to the point of excluding everyone else. Ames' legal victory is likely to fuel further debate over whether we're entering a new phase of 'reverse discrimination' litigation—where being white, straight, or male can now be leveraged in civil rights courtrooms as the basis of systemic bias. But the facts of Ames' case, while legally persuasive to the Court, remain emotionally murky. According to the lawsuit, Ames had been with the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004, eventually rising to lead a program aimed at combating prison rape. In 2019, she reportedly applied for a promotion and was passed over for a lesbian colleague who allegedly lacked a college degree and had less tenure. Not long after, Ames was demoted, and her former position was filled by a gay man. Her complaint: she lost both opportunities because she was straight. The employer's rebuttal: she lacked vision, leadership, and—more subtly—the emotional intelligence to lead. One might read between those HR lines and detect the scent of a corporate 'Karen.' Source: The Washington Post / Getty Despite Ames' insistence that her sexual orientation was the problem, court filings from the state describe her office performance as the real issue, revealing that she was more of a poor team player than a persecuted worker. Officials reportedly described her as 'difficult to work with' and pointed out that the supervisors who made promotion decisions were straight, challenging the idea of an anti-hetero bias at the institutional level. Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost defended the department's actions in court, saying Ames' rejection and eventual demotion were part of an internal restructuring process, with department leaders saying they felt she was difficult to work with, and lacked the vision and leadership needed for the position she sought. Still, the Court's ruling wasn't about whether Ames was discriminated against—it was about her right to argue that she was without being subjected to an unfair legal burden simply because she's straight. For that reason, this case now returns to the lower courts for another round and potentially a full trial. Legal scholars note that this ruling could open the floodgates to more lawsuits from majority-group plaintiffs who feel shut out by race- or orientation-conscious hiring and promotion practices. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, cited an amicus brief from the Trump-aligned group America First Legal, which has recently taken aim at major corporations like Starbucks and IBM for so-called reverse discrimination. But there's a deeper cultural layer here that can't be ignored. Was Ames truly the victim of anti-straight bias, or was she an underwhelming candidate looking for a convenient legal hook in the form of her colleagues' LGBTQ+ status? In an era where 'DEI fatigue' is a real thing in boardrooms and breakrooms alike, the line between legitimate grievance and performative fragility is increasingly blurred. Still, the Supreme Court's message is clear: Discrimination law is about equality of process, not identity advantage. No group, majority or minority, gets a shortcut or a steeper climb to their day in court. So while Ames may still lose her case, she'll now do so with the same legal footing afforded to any other claimant, and for some, that's progress. For others, it's the beginning of a new kind of fear. But let's be clear: whether Ames' tears are of mayo or merit, this ruling is a turning point and in today's polarized professional climate, it's only the beginning of a much larger reckoning over who gets to claim 'discrimination'—and who gets believed. SEE ALSO: California Teen Sprinter Disqualified For Celebrating State Title Win Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk: Feud Cools After Explosive Clash SEE ALSO Mayo Tears Or Real Fears: Supreme Court Rules For Straight Woman In Job Discrimination Suit was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE

Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Miami Herald
Patterson questioned about intentions, feelings for poisoned victims
June 6 (UPI) -- The prosecution in the Erin Patterson mushroom murder meal trial went another round with Patterson Friday to prove she purposely invited her estranged husband Simon's family over to her house for a meal in order to kill them. Patterson has maintained that she asked Simon's parents Don and Gail Patterson, and his aunt and uncle Heather and Ian Wilkinson, over for that meal, a lunch of beef Wellington, to her home in Australia in August of 2023 to tell them about a cancer diagnosis. She has since admitted she misled them about having cancer but instead had really invited them to her home to discuss her plans to have weight-loss surgery. Don and Gail died later that week, as did Heather, from the ingestion of poisonous death cap mushrooms, which prosecutors allege Erin purposely put in their lunch. Ian was sickened and hospitalized but survived. Prosecutor Nanette Rogers alleged in her opening statement Friday that Patterson did not consume death cap mushrooms at the lunch, but pretended to have been sickened as a cover-up and that was "why we say she was reluctant to receive medical treatment for death cap mushroom poisoning." Rogers put forth to Patterson that she not only had allegedly invited the victims over to kill them with a death cap-laced meal, but had furthermore prepared an extra poisoned meal in case Simon, who had declined his invitation to dine that day, changed his mind and came to eat. Patterson testified Tuesday that she had only eaten a small portion of the beef Wellington lunch because she was deep in conversation and later had vomited up the food because she also ate cake and has a history of binging and purging. Patterson also testified that she went to the hospital after the meal but discharged herself against medical advice, which prosecutors used to suggest that she was not sickened by the food. The prosecution then alleged Patterson purposely didn't feed the poisoned meal to her kids, which was why she didn't have them medically assessed. Rogers also mentioned messages Patterson allegedly sent to her Facebook friends, and to Don, Gail and Simon. "You had two faces, a public face of appearing to have a good relationship with Don and Gail," she said to Patterson. "I suggest your private face was the one you showed in your Facebook message group." Rogers went back through messages Patterson ostensibly wrote about Don and Gail, which were laced with expletives and allegedly mentioned she wanted "nothing to do" with them. She also suggested that Patterson had not shown any concern for Simon's parents, never asking how they felt after learning they were initially sickened. "Incorrect," Patterson said. Rogers then asked, "And you never asked how Heather was going, and I assume you disagree?" "Correct," Patterson replied. Patterson has pleaded not guilty to three counts of murder and one of attempted murder in the case. She will take the stand again Tuesday. Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.