The Mushroom Murder Trial | Erin Patterson Podcast
The Mushroom Murder Trial Podcast delivers on-the-spot coverage of one of Australia’s most prominent criminal trials.
The focus is on Morwell, a town in southeastern Victoria, as the case of the Department of Public Prosecutions versus Erin Trudi Patterson unfolds. The hearings are taking place at the La Trobe Magistrates’ Court, located about 152 kilometres east of Melbourne, the state’s capital.
The Mushroom Murder Trial Podcast follows the event as it moves through the Australian legal system, examining the tragic aftermath of a family lunch involving Beef Wellington and mushrooms.
Ms Erin Patterson is pleading not guilty to all charges, which are being run under the direction of The Supreme Court of Victoria. She faces three murder charges and one attempted murder allegation following the deaths after the 29 July 2023 family lunch.
The allegations relate to a meal of Beef Wellington which included toxic death cap mushrooms
The Mushroom Murder Trial Podcast will examine this tragedy as it makes its way through the Australian legal system.
Ms Erin Patterson, aged 50, from Leongatha, was a trainee mathematics teacher before this tragic incident.
Subscribe to our Mushroom Murder Trial Podcast newsletter at www.mushroommurdertrial.com for regular updates and exclusive insights.
Follow us on Instagram @Erin_pod and find us on Facebook by searching for the Mushroom Murder Trial Podcast. If you'd like to support this independent coverage, consider the Buy Me A Coffee membership for $5, which helps cover production costs and provides exclusive member content from The Mushrooms Murder Trial Podcast.
🔒 Subscribe for Premium Access 🔍
Love the podcast? Unlock even more. Subscribers get exclusive access to premium and bonus episodes—no fluff, no filter, just the unvarnished truth. Deep dives, behind-the-scenes insights, and the details we can’t always share publicly. If you're serious about the story, this is where it gets real.
🎧 Subscribe now and stay one step ahead.
The Mushroom Murder Trial | Erin Patterson Podcast
Unraveling the Mushrioom Trial: Erin Patterson's Courthouse Drama
This episode is from Friday's transcript from the Erin Patterson murder trial, focusing on the prosecutor's examination of Erin's Facebook messages and her account of inviting Simon and his parents to the fatal lunch.
• Lisa hosts with guest Louise
• Erin's Facebook messages allegedly reveal frustrations with ex-husband Simon and his parents
• Messages include phrases like "I'm sick of this shit" and "f them" which Erin claims were just venting
• A Witness testified that Erin had portrayed Simon as a poor father and complained about him to online friends
• Did Erin mention "important medical news" when inviting Simon to lunch
• Simon's text declining the invitation and Erin's response urging him to reconsider become key evidence
• The prosecution suggests Erin deliberately kept her children away from the lunch where mushrooms were served
• Testimony examines what the prosecution claims as a deteriorating relationship between Erin, Simon, and his parents in months before the incident
Thanks for listening. For more information, visit my website. Make sure you subscribe to my newsletter on www.mushroommurdertrial.com, it's jam-packed with news about the trial. Plus I'm on Instagram at Erin underscore pod. You can find me on Facebook. Just search the podcast, the mushroom Murder Trial podcast. I also will put links in the show notes to those social media accounts.
And if you were feeling like rewarding me for the thousands of hours I’ve spent on this work, I have a buy me a coffee membership which allows you to pay $5 as a thanks and I get a coffee. This goes towards the editing, studio hire, liability \insurance, equipment, sound and voiceovers. Plus there’s exclusive membership material on the site, just for you.
Instagram @Erin_Podcast
Twitter @lisapodcasts
Mushroom Murder Trial Website Facebook page
Hello and welcome to the Mushroom Murder Trial podcast. My name is Lisa and I have a very special guest today. She is Lake Macquarie's number one Real Housewives of Sydney. Podcaster, louise, how are you?
Speaker 2:I'm great Lisa, Lovely to be here.
Speaker 1:Lovely to be here. I've actually forgotten the name of what our podcast was when we were doing that the Real Housewives of Sydney Snark. Yes.
Speaker 2:We really need to revisit Season 2 because it's a bit juicy.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we might have to after this and after you finish your 1,000 jobs that you've got.
Speaker 2:Well, that's true, I mean, I do love a project.
Speaker 1:And here's one for you. On a Sunday morning.
Speaker 2:Yes, I know, only for you would I work on Sundays.
Speaker 1:But and also it's a long weekend too, so thank you, and thank you for everyone for listening today. We're delighted to have you here. We are going to read part of Friday's transcript in the Erin Patterson case.
Speaker 2:I'm obviously the prosecutor, right, and you are Erin, yeah, and you pitched it to me like it's the role of a lifetime.
Speaker 1:Well, mine is also the role of a lifetime. This Dr Rogers is so smart, she seriously doesn't miss a thing. But also Mr Mandy Erin's barrister he doesn't miss a thing either. There's some very smart people in that room.
Speaker 2:Yeah, great, Okay. Well, I'm excited to get into it.
Speaker 1:Shall we go.
Speaker 2:We shall Okay.
Speaker 1:On page six, there's a message that you sent on Facebook Messenger dated the 7th of December 2022 at 11.20.
Speaker 2:Correct.
Speaker 1:Page seven Quote Simon wants to walk away from his responsibilities too. Well, that's his choice. Maybe it's easier if he's not involved in even paying their school fees, means I can choose their school all by myself and I don't have to refer to him. If he wants them to go to school, then he can help pay for it. If he doesn't want to help pay for it, then I don't have to send him there, do I? So maybe it just means I have even more freedom about my choices? A blessing in disguise. So you agree that you sent the message on the 7th of December?
Speaker 2:I did.
Speaker 1:To your online friends.
Speaker 2:I did.
Speaker 1:Do you still say that you consulted Simon before moving the children to their new school?
Speaker 2:Again, it matters what you mean by consult. Did you mean I asked his permission, or do you mean did I tell him Advise, tell, I did advise, I did tell.
Speaker 1:Yes, so you still say in your position that you did tell him in March.
Speaker 2:I did.
Speaker 1:And I suggest that you didn't. But you disagree with that.
Speaker 2:I do disagree. In fact he went on the enrolment forms and the school fees forms for before that term started.
Speaker 1:Is it your evidence that there was a change in their relationship with Simon after the disputes about the child support and the school fees? Yes, there was. Tanya Patterson has given evidence that in the year leading up to the July 2023 lunch, she noticed that the relationship between the two of you had deteriorated a bit and you both no longer interacted as much together. Would you agree with that?
Speaker 2:I agree she said that, but then I remember she also said that there was possibly only the last six months from January 23, and I agree with that.
Speaker 1:Tanya also said and Simon didn't go on the Christmas holiday that year to New Zealand with you and the children and he didn't, did he, that's correct, he did not come. And was that because the relationship between you and Simon had altered?
Speaker 2:Um, I don't think I could. He didn't want to go to New Zealand, that wasn't. He went to Brisbane to visit friends.
Speaker 1:Matthew Patterson gave evidence that in recent years before the lunch you didn't participate a lot in family functions. You heard him give that evidence.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, I did hear him say that. Yes, and do you?
Speaker 1:agree with that.
Speaker 2:No.
Speaker 1:Is it your evidence that you did participate a lot in family functions? Yeah, in the recent years.
Speaker 2:before the lunch so up until the first half of 2023, I don't believe there was a change in my participation. I think there was a change in family events through some of that time because there was a lot of covid lockdowns in 21 which affected how many gatherings there were. But other than that, if there was a gathering and I was invited, I went, went.
Speaker 1:So you say Matthew Patterson is incorrect when he says that in recent years before the lunch you didn't participate a lot in family functions?
Speaker 2:I think he's wrong about that timeframe.
Speaker 1:yes, he also gave evidence that the conversations between you and Simon were less casual than they had been previously. This is before the lunch.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's true for that last six months.
Speaker 1:yes, Okay, so one of the children gave evidence through a recorded statement and evidence that, while you remain married to each other, the interactions between you both before the lunch were very negative.
Speaker 2:He did say that.
Speaker 1:Yes, do you agree with that observation of your son?
Speaker 2:I think our interactions were strained, yes, strained, yeah, they were.
Speaker 1:Not very negative.
Speaker 2:It depends what they mean by negative. But I mean I think we have already agreed several times that our relationship changed in that last six months. I think everybody has agreed with that.
Speaker 1:I want to ask you some questions now about your account of your relationship with Simon and his parents, and I want to take you to Exhibit 54, page 3. Do you need to read it?
Speaker 2:I know what it says.
Speaker 1:If that, answers your question. This is a message from you you sent on Facebook Messenger on 6 December 2022 at 10.19am. Yes, you recount that in that message about Simon's dad, Don, contacting you. Yes, and then at the end of the message you say quote this family. I swear to fucking God.
Speaker 2:I did write that.
Speaker 1:This expressed your true feelings about Don and Gail Patterson, didn't it?
Speaker 2:No.
Speaker 1:I suggest that you are wrong about that, Uh no, I'm not wrong. Go to page four, please, of the same exhibit. The top message is from you to your Facebook friends. It is Quote I said to him about 50 times yesterday I didn't want them to adjudicate. Now that's a reference to Don, correct.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it is.
Speaker 1:Quote no body bloody listens to me. At least I know they're a lost cause.
Speaker 2:I did write that.
Speaker 1:You sent it at 10.27am.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 1:And again I suggest it expressed how you truly felt about Don and Gail that they were a lost cause. No Agree or disagree, disagree. The next message below that, 6-12-22 at 10-38 am, sent by you on Facebook Messenger. Correct the first line. I wonder if they've got any capacity for self-reflection at all. You sent that.
Speaker 2:I did, I sent the whole message.
Speaker 1:Do you need to read the rest of the message?
Speaker 2:No.
Speaker 1:Do you agree that you are critical of Simon Patterson in that message?
Speaker 2:Yes, I was.
Speaker 1:Do you agree that you were sheeting some of his behaviour back to his parents?
Speaker 2:It does look like I did that, yes.
Speaker 1:Well, you did do it, didn't you? I was doing it. There's nothing seeming about it.
Speaker 2:I was doing that, yes.
Speaker 1:Page five, the same exhibit. Do you need to read that?
Speaker 2:No.
Speaker 1:It reads in part Don rang me last night to say he thought there was a solution to all of this if Simon and I get together and try and talk and pray together. And there are two emojis which you dispute are eye-rolling emojis.
Speaker 2:I do.
Speaker 1:Now we're in court and this is Lisa here discussing emojis and the meanings of emojis.
Speaker 2:I know the emoji she's talking about.
Speaker 1:So anyway, Louise, I was just saying that. How many times do you think emojis come up these days?
Speaker 2:Well, I don't know. I mean, and you know, they can be interpreted lots of different ways, can't they?
Speaker 1:Well, and there's so many emojis in the world, so many Different ones. Absolutely Depends what keyboard you're using, what phone, what device 100%. So that's just Lisa and Louise giving our opinion on emojis. Absolutely Depends what keyboard you're using, what phone, what device A hundred percent. So that's just Lisa and Louise giving our opinion on emojis. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Are you actually cooking eggplant?
Speaker 1:Oh, my goodness Right, keep it serious, keep it serious. We're in court, we're in court, and there are two emojis which you dispute are eye-rolling emojis.
Speaker 2:I do.
Speaker 1:Correct.
Speaker 2:Correct.
Speaker 1:A little further down, you said Don messaged to say he and Gail don't want to get involved in the financial things, but just, we will pray for the kids. Again, there's an emoji that you say is not an eye-rolling emoji, correct. Further down, that's when Don said they tried to talk to him that is Simon but he refused to talk about it. So they're staying out of it but want us to pray together. I'm sick of this shit. I want nothing to do with them. Correct.
Speaker 2:I did write that.
Speaker 1:I thought his parents would want him to do the right thing, but it seems they're concerned about not wanting to feel uncomfortable and not wanting to get involved in their son's personal matters. Are overriding that, so fuck them.
Speaker 2:I did write that.
Speaker 1:You wrote that I did. That's what you thought about, gail, and Don correct, fuck them.
Speaker 2:I wrote that and I was venting and I was frustrated. But I regret writing it and I'm ashamed that I wrote that.
Speaker 1:I suggest these were your true feelings about how you thought of Gail and Don.
Speaker 2:I disagree.
Speaker 1:And you weren't venting.
Speaker 2:I was venting.
Speaker 1:And that these feelings, these true feelings that you had persisted through to July 2023, correct, incorrect and early August no Same exhibit. Exhibit F, page 6. Oh sorry, exhibit 54. You're right, page 6. Oh sorry, exhibit 54. You're right, page 6. This is a message from you. It is.
Speaker 1:Dated the 7th of December 2022 at 11.20am it is. His parents sent me a message yesterday afternoon and Simon sent me one last night, but I've read neither and I don't think I will. I don't want to hear it. Simon's will just be horrible and be gaslighting and abusive and it will ruin my day, and his parents' message will be more weasel words about not getting involved. You wrote those words, I did. I suggest again that you were angry. They did not take your side against Simon Patterson, correct or incorrect?
Speaker 2:No, I wasn't angry, but I was frustrated and hurt.
Speaker 1:So you were frustrated and hurt when you wrote the previous message of fuck them.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I was.
Speaker 1:Not angry.
Speaker 2:No.
Speaker 1:Tell you what YouTube is going to have. A. They're going to be not passing this on because you know how it doesn't like swearing. Yeah, I don't know, it's got some kind of profanity filler, so sorry. If you want to listen on YouTube you'll have to dig Right. Same exhibit, page eight. You can read that message. You can see it.
Speaker 2:Sorry, the water just got stuck in my throat. Do you want?
Speaker 1:me to read it out loud or just read it. No, I just want to make sure you know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2:Yes, I do.
Speaker 1:Quote his mum was horrified that I had claimed child support. Yes, why isn't she horrified that her son is such a deadbeat that I had no choice but to claim? That's the message you sent.
Speaker 2:I did.
Speaker 1:I suggest you were unhappy with Gail's response about you claiming child support at this point I don't know if I was happy or unhappy.
Speaker 2:I mean, clearly I wasn't happy, but I don't think unhappy is the right way to put it either, but I was frustrated, I think.
Speaker 1:And hurt.
Speaker 2:I don't think hurt is reflected in this message. I was frustrated, I was hurt about a lot of things. Yeah, I was.
Speaker 1:I want to go. I've finished with that exhibit now. Thank you. I now want to go to your Facebook friend's evidence. Christine Hunt gave evidence and I'll break it down. She said that you painted Simon as a father who was coercive. You remember her saying that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I do.
Speaker 1:Who disagreed with you a lot. You heard her say that. I did disagreed with you a lot you heard her say that I did and in particular around some following up of medical issues. If one of the kids was not. Well, yeah, she did say that. She said you never seemed happy with his follow-up and his commitment to what was happening.
Speaker 2:Yes, she did say that.
Speaker 1:Was what Christine Hunt gave evidence of, consistent with what you had told her about, simon.
Speaker 2:No.
Speaker 1:Okay, so I'll break it down then. Okay, First, her evidence was you painted Simon as a father who was coercive. Agree that you told Christine Hunt that or disagree.
Speaker 2:Disagree.
Speaker 1:She also said that you told her Simon disagreed with you a lot and in particular, around some following up medical issues if one of the child wasn't well, did you tell her that or not?
Speaker 2:No.
Speaker 1:Did you tell her that you were never happy, or seemed happy, with his follow-up and his commitment to what was happening?
Speaker 2:I'm not sure what she's referring to there Follow-up about what I don't know what she's talking about.
Speaker 1:Do you agree that you posted that Simon Patterson was not a good father?
Speaker 2:Posted where? Do you mean in the Facebook group? I was in with Christine.
Speaker 1:Yes, no, yes in with Christine.
Speaker 2:Yes, no.
Speaker 1:Yes, with Christine Hunt.
Speaker 2:No.
Speaker 1:I didn't. I want to go now to Daniela Barkley. Her evidence was I'll break it down as we go Sure, you posted this is her evidence you posted on the Facebook group that Simon wasn't a very nice person. You heard her give that evidence the Facebook group that Simon wasn't a very nice person.
Speaker 2:You heard her give that evidence. Can you just clarify for me? Did she say I posted that in a group or I said that in our private chat, Because that makes a difference as to whether I did it or not.
Speaker 1:Well, did you do it on both oh?
Speaker 2:I definitely discussed my relationship with Simon in the private group chat. I don't remember saying he wasn't a very nice person.
Speaker 1:Well, that was the evidence she gave in this trial. She did give that, yeah, so did you say it on a post that Daniela Barkley read.
Speaker 2:I don't know if I did or I didn't. I might have. I might have said that in a private group chat. I don't know.
Speaker 1:Daniela Barkley also gave evidence that you weren't happy with his cleanliness. That's true? You heard her say that, yes, and is that the truth that you told her or that you posted that?
Speaker 2:Yeah, it is true, because I had to spend two weeks cleaning his house at one point.
Speaker 1:Daniela Barclay also said that you didn't want the kids to sleep over there at night because you weren't happy with the way he lived. That's true yeah, so you told her that.
Speaker 2:I possibly or not told, but posted. I probably discussed that in the chat with those four or five women.
Speaker 1:yeah, Well, and Daniela Barclay was one of those women? Correct? She was. Yes, katrina Cripps' evidence was that you told her and Naomi Schroeder, on 1st of August 2023, that Simon had been mean to you, but never nasty. Yeah, I think I did say that yes, did you tell Katrina Cripps and Naomi Schroeder that Simon Patterson had become nasty towards you after you claimed child support? That was the evidence of Miss Crisp.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I did say that, yes.
Speaker 1:Yep, I'm moving to a different topic and this is about your lunch invitation to Simon Patterson. His evidence was that after the church service on the 16th of July 2023, you approached him while he was sitting down at the laptop sound mixing desk. So I'll ask you to break it down. So you agree, you approached him on the 16th of July. Yes, his evidence was that you said to him you had some important medical news that you wanted some advice on. He did say that. Did you say it to him? No, you disagree.
Speaker 2:I disagree.
Speaker 1:Simon's evidence was that you said you had some important medical news. You wanted some advice on. You dispute that quote, how to break it to the kids, that phrase. He did say that. Yes, you heard him give that evidence. Yes, Did you say that to him?
Speaker 2:I did not.
Speaker 1:A continuation of his evidence is. So you're inviting Don and Gail, mum and dad and Heather and Ian and him to the lunch to discuss that topic? You heard him give that evidence.
Speaker 2:What you just said, then are you saying that he said that.
Speaker 1:Yes, I'll read it again, but I'll do it again. Yes, please, if you're unclear, sorry, that's you.
Speaker 2:Yep. Sorry, I'm getting confused.
Speaker 1:I don't want you to be misled. Yeah, simon Patterson, yep, gave evidence. I'llled. Yeah, simon Patterson, yep, gave evidence. I'll recap Okay, that after the church service on the 16 July. Yeah, you approached him while he was at the sound mixing desk. Yes, you agreed that you did not do that. That's true. Yes, his evidence is that you said you had some important medical news, that you wanted some advice on how to break it to the kids. You disagree, I disagree. You say that that's not true, correct. You didn't say that at all to Simon Patterson. I did not say that. Simon Patterson's evidence. So you were inviting Don and Gail, mum and dad, and Heather and Ian and him to lunch. So this is recounting the conversation that he had with you. Yep, so you told him you're inviting Don, gail, mum and Dad, in other words, and Heather and Ian and Minimum to lunch to discuss the topic.
Speaker 2:Okay, no, that's not what I said to him.
Speaker 1:So did you tell him you were inviting his parents, heather and Ian, and him to lunch?
Speaker 2:I told him that I'd already invited Ian and Heather and Don and Gail, and I invited him as well.
Speaker 1:yes, but you dispute that. You said to Simon to discuss that topic. That is the important medical news. Yes, that you wanted advice on how to break it to the kids.
Speaker 2:Correct. That wasn't the purpose of the lunch or the purpose of the invitations.
Speaker 1:No, I'm not asking about the purpose of the lunch or the purpose of the invitation. I'm asking about the. Isn't that what that means?
Speaker 2:That's me. Oh sorry. Is that what that means? That you said I was inviting them to discuss the medical issues? That implies purpose.
Speaker 1:That you wanted advice on how to break that to the kid Correct.
Speaker 2:That wasn't the purpose of the lunch or the purpose of the invitations.
Speaker 1:No, I'm not asking about the purpose of lunch or the purpose of the invitations. No, I'm not asking about the purpose of lunch or the purpose of the invitations. I'm asking you about that word's unclear.
Speaker 2:Isn't that what that means, that you said I was inviting them to discuss the medical issues? That implies purpose, does it not? Unless I'm misunderstanding.
Speaker 1:Simon's evidence is that you said to him you're inviting his parents and Ian and Heather to lunch to discuss important medical news, that you wanted some advice on how to break that to the kids. Yes, that's what I'm asking you about.
Speaker 2:Yes, he did say that, but I did not say that to him.
Speaker 1:Did you ask if he'd be able to come on the 29th of July 2023? I did, so that's correct.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I did invite him to lunch.
Speaker 1:Yes, that's true, and that was Simon's evidence that you did say to him he would be able to come to lunch on the 29th. It is yes. He also said you were keen for the lunch not to be with the kids. You heard him say that.
Speaker 2:I did.
Speaker 1:Did you say that to Simon or not?
Speaker 2:I did not.
Speaker 1:Simon's evidence was that he said he would attend the lunch and you agreed.
Speaker 2:He did.
Speaker 1:Because that was your evidence in chief, wasn't it Correct? He did. You asked him if he'd come to lunch and he agreed that he would he did. This is on the 16th of July.
Speaker 2:Yep.
Speaker 1:Simon's evidence was that you'd already invited his parents, ian and Heather. Yes, and they were going to come. Yes, and you were inviting him as well, correct? That was his evidence, yep, so I want to make sure that I understand your evidence. On the 16th of July you invited Simon to lunch for the 29th of July I did, and you told him you'd already invited Don and Gail and Ian and Heather, correct? I suggest to you you thought Simon would be more likely to accept the invitation if he knew his parents and Ian and Heather were also attending. Agree or disagree? I would disagree with that. I suggest that you did. Forgive me if I'm suggesting this twice. You deny saying you told Simon you had some important medical news, that you wanted some advice on how to break that to the kids, correct? Correct? You flatly deny that, do you?
Speaker 2:I deny it.
Speaker 1:I suggest you told him you had a medical issue to encourage him to attend. Correct or incorrect?
Speaker 2:No incorrect.
Speaker 1:I suggest that this was also your excuse for while the children were not present at the lunch, and I assume you disagree with that.
Speaker 2:I do disagree with that.
Speaker 1:I suggest that, in fact, you did not want your children to be present for the lunch because you wanted to ensure that there was no way they could eat the meal that you were planning to serve to your guests on July 29.
Speaker 2:No, that's not true.
Speaker 1:Could I take you to exhibit two, please? Are you able to read the screen?
Speaker 2:I can thank you.
Speaker 1:The top message is from Simon Patterson to you. It is On the 28th of July 2023 at 6.54pm. Yes, Okay, we need a Simon voice now, don't we? We'll have to see if we can find someone to be Simon.
Speaker 2:Do you want me to?
Speaker 1:Drop it down a bit. Yeah, no, it's okay, I'll just do it in my best prosecutor voice. Sorry, I feel too uncomfortable about coming to the lunch with you Mum, dad, heather and Ian tomorrow, but I'm happy to talk about your health and implications of that at another time. If you'd like to discuss on the phone, just let me know.
Speaker 2:He did say that.
Speaker 1:I suggest that the words in his message I'm happy to talk about your health and the implications of that is a direct reference to you telling him on July 16 you had some important medical news. I disagree. You responded to that message. It's the blue message at the bottom. It is. You sent that the same evening 6.59pm. I did. That was your response. It was. Do you agree that you urged him to reconsider in your message to him? I did. Do you agree? You said that? Quote. Sorry, you told him. Quote may not be able to host a lunch like this again for some time, correct?
Speaker 2:I did say that.
Speaker 1:I suggest that you wrote and used those words to make it seem like the medical issue was the reason, correct or incorrect?
Speaker 2:I don't understand the question, so I can't answer it.
Speaker 1:Okay, I'll start again. You can see in that message. Okay, you've read the message out and I'll please show.
Speaker 2:Sure, that's really disappointing. I've spent many hours this week preparing for lunch for tomorrow, which has been exhausting in light of the issues I'm facing, and spent a small fortune on beef eye fillet to make beef wellingtons because I wanted it to be a special meal. As I may not be able to host a lunch like this again for some time, it's important to me that you're all there tomorrow and that I can have the conversations that I need to have. I hope you'll change your mind. Your parents and Heather and Ian are coming at 12.30. I hope to see you there.
Speaker 1:All right. So in the second line you've written, which has been exhaustive in light of the issues I'm facing, yes, I suggest that you are in that, the use of that phrase purporting to refer to the medical issues you told him about on 16 July.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I did. I did tell him on the 16th of July that I wanted to discuss some medical stuff at the lunch. That is true, but I did not say to him serious, important medical news to break to the kids. That's the purpose and that's the purpose of the lunch.
Speaker 1:All right. So when I asked you a little earlier, did you say to him that you had important medical news, that you wanted some advice on what was it about that you disagreed important.
Speaker 2:That I said it was important and that I said I wanted advice on it, on how to break it to the kids.
Speaker 1:Okay, so on the 16th of July you agreed that you told Simon that you had some medical news that you wanted some advice on.
Speaker 2:No, I think I just disagreed with that.
Speaker 1:Now we have to stop here now because the Supreme Court owns the copyright to this transcript, so we don't want to violate fair use.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 1:So, Louise, we have to thank you for being the first ever guest on the Mushroom Murder Trial podcast.
Speaker 2:I'm very honoured.
Speaker 1:I always drag you into my stuff, don't I?
Speaker 2:You do, but look I love it because it's just you know Never a dull moment, never a dull moment.
Speaker 1:So thank you everyone for listening. Make sure you go to my website, Sign up for the newsletter. It's free and I'm putting one out today and there'll be all sorts of interesting information. Also, if you'd like to buy me a coffee $5, but only if you can See I could actually buy Louise a coffee yeah, that'd be nice, but only if you can afford it. Otherwise, you just being here is incredible, amazing. We really appreciate it. And if you're in Australia, happy long weekend. And also the links to the show are in the show notes. All my socials Buy me a coffee Anything else, Louise?
Speaker 2:Well, I don't think so, just other than you're fabulous.
Speaker 1:So are you, babe.
Speaker 2:Love you.
Speaker 1:Love you too. All right, everyone, have a fabulous weekend. Enjoy your day off tomorrow, if you've got one, and we shall talk soon. Thanks, bye.
