6 ms·

She invited four people over for lunch. A week later, three were dead

53 points by mhb 3y ago

frontman1988 3y ago
It's amazing how many poisons exist around us which can be easily used to kill anybody without much trace. Given the number of such deadly poisons, bio-attack cases using these are relatively rare.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Not just poisons, but also explosives, knives, guns, bludgeoning weapons, battery acid, cars... there are innumerable ways to kill or maim people but very rarely do people do these things. The truth is that very few people are ever inclined to murder. Remember this the next time politicians try to make you afraid and tell you they need to xray everybody and grope grandma to stop the terrorists.
  - sinkwool 3y ago
    > The truth is that very few people are ever inclined to murder. I believe that many people are afraid of the consequences if they were to get caught. I think that if there was some "magical" way to murder someone without getting caught, there would be vastly more murders. Just think of any road rage video: I imagine that many of the participants would be capable of murder at that instance if they knew they would get away with it. Or think about school shootings: how many more would there be if the perpetrators were sure that it was consequence free.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      I don't believe that. People commit lesser crimes with similar punishments (many years in prison) at a much higher rate; why doesn't the threat of punishment make armed robbery or burglary as rare as murder? Furthermore, if somebody wants to coldly kill for the thrill of it, they can probably do so and get away with it because police suck at solving murders when the murderer and the victim didn't already know each other, yet people being randomly murdered by strangers is very rare, even more rare than other kinds of murders. The easiest kind of murder to get away with is the most rare kind of murder! Additionally, if somebody is so enraged as to seriously consider murder, they are emotionally compromised and rational consideration of the consequences is therefore unlikely. For these reasons, I conclude that punishment is not an effective deterrent to murder. Punishment is an effective deterrent for some other kinds of crimes, but not murder. > Just think of any road rage video: I imagine that many of the participants would be capable of murder at that instance if they knew they would get away with it. There's a huge difference between believing somebody deserves to be yelled at (or even beaten up) and believing they deserve to be killed. Just because people are very angry at each other doesn't mean they're suppressing a homicidal impulse. And even if they were suppressing a homicidal impulse, that restraint is likely motivated by the innate empathy most humans except an aberrant few experience. If the only thing keeping you from murdering people is the threat of punishment, you're probably a high-functioning sociopath. Most people aren't.
opensourcecat 3y ago
Shades of Shirley Jackson's We Have Always Lived in the Castle....
nobody9999 3y ago
https://archive.is/dJJGi https://archive.is/dJJGi
kevinmchugh 3y ago
Foraging is a very cool hobby that I'd like to get into some day, but I'm aware of the potential for it to go wrong. My understanding is that in many places, you cannot determine safe mushrooms from dangerous ones using reference photos, they're just too similar and you need live expertise. What's safe and what's dangerous is also very localized. I worry that social media will cause people to think they can forage safely and cause this kind of thing to happen.
- galleywest200 3y ago
  Correct, photos are not adequate when trying to identify a mushroom yourself for the first time (when intending consumption). You need to do things such as spore-prints [1]. It is also strongly advised to go out into the field with those who are already experienced and have them teach you to identify, and not to be "self-taught". Your local mycological society would be more than happy to educate you. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_print https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_print
  - erikerikson 3y ago
    Some mushrooms require microscopic examination of spite shape to distinguish between possibilities and edible varieties. It's best to find safe species in your region and learn to distinguish them and their look alikes by forwarding with a very knowledgeable and experienced mycologist.
  - secstate 3y ago
    The other reality is that in most regions there's only a handful of truly dangerous fungus groups with look-alikes that, while edible, are not particularly choice. And the really delicious fungus often have look alikes that are not delicious and may cause GI issues, but wont kill you. So while all of this should come with a warning to talk with others and do research, it's not impossible to learn what's edible and enjoy foraging. The internet is great at making us afraid of the outdoors. But you just need to take a few precautions if you do eat fungus such as picking one person in your group with a solid GI system to eat a tiny bit and wait 24-48 hours. If they're good, make a note in your journal, take some detailed photos and try eating it again. Some of the best eating I've ever done was sauteed butter-footed boletes in an omelet.
kenjackson 3y ago
“She declined to say what was on the ill-fated lunch menu, or whether she had eaten it.” Why would she decline this? Did she just not tell the media, but told the police?
- pengaru 3y ago
  Anyone with half a brain would refrain from potential self-incrimination when suspected of murder. Guilty or not, what you say can be used against you.
- lylejantzi3rd 3y ago
  I don't know how it is in Australia, but in the US, there's no reason to talk to the police if you're suspected of murder. It can never help you. It can only hurt you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE edit: the video is a talk a criminal lawyer gave explaining why it's a bad idea to talk to the police. If you want a more detailed explanation, watch it.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    I like the UK method [1] more. You can be silent if you like but if you want to claim you were just going on a "jog" and not "running away from somebody you murdered" you better make that claim now. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales#Adverse_inferences_from_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
    - lylejantzi3rd 3y ago
      Do you know if Australia has a similar method?
      - lesuorac 3y ago
        Neither an australian nor a lawyer but it looks like they don't [1] and instead are similar to the US. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_Australia
Traubenfuchs 3y ago
Imagine having tried to kill your ex husband and later succeeding in killing two couples with poisoned food and getting away with it. Great method, perfect for plausible deniability.
- bzax 3y ago
  Not just any two couples, one couple was her ex-husband's parents...
  - bombcar 3y ago
    That right there moves it solidly into "planned action", but I don't have much available data.
- brmgb 3y ago
  Imagine randomly accusing someone of multiple murders on the internet with absolutely no proof.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    There's a lot of circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial evidence is sometimes sufficient to convict people for murder. Circumstantial evidence is certainly enough to suspect murder, if not convict somebody of it. To be pedantic, "proof" is for mathematicians, the rest of us mere mortals have to content ourselves with evidence.
    - brmgb 3y ago
      Evidence and proof are the same word in my own native language. > There's a lot of circumstantial evidence Hardly. You could arbor doubts for the people who ate at her place but for her husband there is absolutely nothing. I am not proud of HN falling at the level of the tabloid press through not really surprised.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
defrost 3y ago
Also covered by another Australian journalist here: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/09/mushroom-mystery-family-lunch-leaves-australian-town-reeling-after-three-die-in-suspected-poisoning https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/09/mushr...
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
AutumnCurtain 3y ago
Ex-husband narrowly survives a sudden and serious GI illness after weeks of intensive care. A year later, his parents and another couple die or nearly die after dinner with his wife, becoming suddenly and violently ill while she and her children are unharmed. Curious.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  I definitely think it is curious, and it obviously deserves to be thoroughly investigated (and by all accounts it is), but I just don't understand this need to immediately jump to conclusions in cases like this. The top comments on this article on the WaPo site are basically "It's not rocket science to know she did it." Why is it so hard to just wait for more information? Yes, it definitely looks very suspicious, but there was no talk of motive in the article, and if someone wanted to murder people, inviting them all over for dinner and then poisoning everyone except you and your family seems like the dumbest way to do it (and I'm not saying that's exculpatory - plenty of murderers are very dumb). I just wish more of us would say "We just don't know yet, and that's fine. Just give it a teeny bit of time to know more."
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    It's fine for people to suspect things before they're prove. She isn't being denied a trial. In fact, suspecting something before it's proven is a prerequisite for that person being brought to trial.
- senectus1 3y ago
  yeah came to make this point. when the story initially broke I thought it sounded like a horrible accident. Now I suspect she's a nasty loon... or at least very very stupid. Will be interesting to see what the Police dig up.

53 points by mhb 3y ago

frontman1988 3y ago

It's amazing how many poisons exist around us which can be easily used to kill anybody without much trace. Given the number of such deadly poisons, bio-attack cases using these are relatively rare.

mcpackieh 3y ago
Not just poisons, but also explosives, knives, guns, bludgeoning weapons, battery acid, cars... there are innumerable ways to kill or maim people but very rarely do people do these things. The truth is that very few people are ever inclined to murder. Remember this the next time politicians try to make you afraid and tell you they need to xray everybody and grope grandma to stop the terrorists.
- sinkwool 3y ago
  > The truth is that very few people are ever inclined to murder. I believe that many people are afraid of the consequences if they were to get caught. I think that if there was some "magical" way to murder someone without getting caught, there would be vastly more murders. Just think of any road rage video: I imagine that many of the participants would be capable of murder at that instance if they knew they would get away with it. Or think about school shootings: how many more would there be if the perpetrators were sure that it was consequence free.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    I don't believe that. People commit lesser crimes with similar punishments (many years in prison) at a much higher rate; why doesn't the threat of punishment make armed robbery or burglary as rare as murder? Furthermore, if somebody wants to coldly kill for the thrill of it, they can probably do so and get away with it because police suck at solving murders when the murderer and the victim didn't already know each other, yet people being randomly murdered by strangers is very rare, even more rare than other kinds of murders. The easiest kind of murder to get away with is the most rare kind of murder! Additionally, if somebody is so enraged as to seriously consider murder, they are emotionally compromised and rational consideration of the consequences is therefore unlikely. For these reasons, I conclude that punishment is not an effective deterrent to murder. Punishment is an effective deterrent for some other kinds of crimes, but not murder. > Just think of any road rage video: I imagine that many of the participants would be capable of murder at that instance if they knew they would get away with it. There's a huge difference between believing somebody deserves to be yelled at (or even beaten up) and believing they deserve to be killed. Just because people are very angry at each other doesn't mean they're suppressing a homicidal impulse. And even if they were suppressing a homicidal impulse, that restraint is likely motivated by the innate empathy most humans except an aberrant few experience. If the only thing keeping you from murdering people is the threat of punishment, you're probably a high-functioning sociopath. Most people aren't.

opensourcecat 3y ago

Shades of Shirley Jackson's We Have Always Lived in the Castle....

nobody9999 3y ago

https://archive.is/dJJGi https://archive.is/dJJGi

kevinmchugh 3y ago

Foraging is a very cool hobby that I'd like to get into some day, but I'm aware of the potential for it to go wrong. My understanding is that in many places, you cannot determine safe mushrooms from dangerous ones using reference photos, they're just too similar and you need live expertise. What's safe and what's dangerous is also very localized. I worry that social media will cause people to think they can forage safely and cause this kind of thing to happen.

galleywest200 3y ago
Correct, photos are not adequate when trying to identify a mushroom yourself for the first time (when intending consumption). You need to do things such as spore-prints [1]. It is also strongly advised to go out into the field with those who are already experienced and have them teach you to identify, and not to be "self-taught". Your local mycological society would be more than happy to educate you. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_print https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_print
- erikerikson 3y ago
  Some mushrooms require microscopic examination of spite shape to distinguish between possibilities and edible varieties. It's best to find safe species in your region and learn to distinguish them and their look alikes by forwarding with a very knowledgeable and experienced mycologist.
- secstate 3y ago
  The other reality is that in most regions there's only a handful of truly dangerous fungus groups with look-alikes that, while edible, are not particularly choice. And the really delicious fungus often have look alikes that are not delicious and may cause GI issues, but wont kill you. So while all of this should come with a warning to talk with others and do research, it's not impossible to learn what's edible and enjoy foraging. The internet is great at making us afraid of the outdoors. But you just need to take a few precautions if you do eat fungus such as picking one person in your group with a solid GI system to eat a tiny bit and wait 24-48 hours. If they're good, make a note in your journal, take some detailed photos and try eating it again. Some of the best eating I've ever done was sauteed butter-footed boletes in an omelet.

kenjackson 3y ago

“She declined to say what was on the ill-fated lunch menu, or whether she had eaten it.” Why would she decline this? Did she just not tell the media, but told the police?

pengaru 3y ago
Anyone with half a brain would refrain from potential self-incrimination when suspected of murder. Guilty or not, what you say can be used against you.
lylejantzi3rd 3y ago
I don't know how it is in Australia, but in the US, there's no reason to talk to the police if you're suspected of murder. It can never help you. It can only hurt you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE edit: the video is a talk a criminal lawyer gave explaining why it's a bad idea to talk to the police. If you want a more detailed explanation, watch it.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  I like the UK method [1] more. You can be silent if you like but if you want to claim you were just going on a "jog" and not "running away from somebody you murdered" you better make that claim now. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales#Adverse_inferences_from_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
  - lylejantzi3rd 3y ago
    Do you know if Australia has a similar method?
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      Neither an australian nor a lawyer but it looks like they don't [1] and instead are similar to the US. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_Australia

Traubenfuchs 3y ago

Imagine having tried to kill your ex husband and later succeeding in killing two couples with poisoned food and getting away with it. Great method, perfect for plausible deniability.

bzax 3y ago
Not just any two couples, one couple was her ex-husband's parents...
- bombcar 3y ago
  That right there moves it solidly into "planned action", but I don't have much available data.
brmgb 3y ago
Imagine randomly accusing someone of multiple murders on the internet with absolutely no proof.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  There's a lot of circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial evidence is sometimes sufficient to convict people for murder. Circumstantial evidence is certainly enough to suspect murder, if not convict somebody of it. To be pedantic, "proof" is for mathematicians, the rest of us mere mortals have to content ourselves with evidence.
  - brmgb 3y ago
    Evidence and proof are the same word in my own native language. > There's a lot of circumstantial evidence Hardly. You could arbor doubts for the people who ate at her place but for her husband there is absolutely nothing. I am not proud of HN falling at the level of the tabloid press through not really surprised.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago

defrost 3y ago

Also covered by another Australian journalist here: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/09/mushroom-mystery-family-lunch-leaves-australian-town-reeling-after-three-die-in-suspected-poisoning https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/09/mushr...

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]

AutumnCurtain 3y ago

Ex-husband narrowly survives a sudden and serious GI illness after weeks of intensive care. A year later, his parents and another couple die or nearly die after dinner with his wife, becoming suddenly and violently ill while she and her children are unharmed. Curious.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I definitely think it is curious, and it obviously deserves to be thoroughly investigated (and by all accounts it is), but I just don't understand this need to immediately jump to conclusions in cases like this. The top comments on this article on the WaPo site are basically "It's not rocket science to know she did it." Why is it so hard to just wait for more information? Yes, it definitely looks very suspicious, but there was no talk of motive in the article, and if someone wanted to murder people, inviting them all over for dinner and then poisoning everyone except you and your family seems like the dumbest way to do it (and I'm not saying that's exculpatory - plenty of murderers are very dumb). I just wish more of us would say "We just don't know yet, and that's fine. Just give it a teeny bit of time to know more."
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  It's fine for people to suspect things before they're prove. She isn't being denied a trial. In fact, suspecting something before it's proven is a prerequisite for that person being brought to trial.
senectus1 3y ago
yeah came to make this point. when the story initially broke I thought it sounded like a horrible accident. Now I suspect she's a nasty loon... or at least very very stupid. Will be interesting to see what the Police dig up.