She invited four people over for lunch. A week later, three were dead | Hacker News Reader

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

washingtonpost.com

53 pointsmhb59 comments

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.

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

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.

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.

Maybe this is regional but all these comments seem way overblown. Just learn to spot death caps and if you're not sure, avoid mushrooms with gills completely and pick only ones with the spongy undersides like summer caps. I've eaten foraged mushrooms hundreds of times throughout my life based on only my grandmother's description of what I should and shouldn't pick.

The ratio of edible:lookalike-and-very-poisonous is regional and varies widely. Would be a fun dataset to visualize.

Anecdotally, I've heard that northern Europe is a relatively "safe" place (i.e. a high score on that ratio) and that the U.S. is, in general, more "dangerous". No firsthand experience to make a claim on the subject, though.

You leaned what was safe from someone who'd been doing it for a long time. You had the kind of live expertise that's necessary to be safe.

As a beginner, I found it helpful to

- get a regional guidebook

- attend a mycology society foray

You can start with mushrooms that have no poisonous look-alikes, and gradually build confidence in your identification skills.

I do see a lot of troubling Facebook posts asking if a big heap of different mushrooms are edible.

You do have to put in some work to be able to identify a lot of different species. As a bonus though, I've leave a lot about trees and natural systems in general.

Avoid foraging. That will remove a whole class of unnecessary hazard. There is near zero benefits in foraging. Any nutrients can easily be gained from modern processed food and supplements. The cost savings in foraging cannot be justify with death or hospitalization. In fact the time wasted foraging can easily earn hundreds of dollars to but more expensive organic food. If it is for apocalypse scenario, learning to be weapon expert have way higher retur s than be a greatest foragers. Unless it is purely for thrill x factor seekers? Then dying is necessary to induce the excitement of knowing one has probability of dying from foraging.

The benefit is that wild mushrooms taste much better than store bought.

You live in your world, but others live in their worlds. It _feels_ like you have a strong opinion about something that you don't have much experience from.

Foraging can be a fun and addictive hobby. Many people learn foraging from their parents and can very safely forage for mushrooms/berries/plants that they identify. It is not (just) about optimizing for nutrients, supplements, costs, apocalypses, whatever. People do stuff for other reasons as well; the joy of finding stuff can be addictive, walking in nature is likely good for you, walking overall is definitely good for you, eating food provided by yourself can give a warm and cozy feeling, and so on.

"Time wasted foraging can easily earn hundreds of dollars", dunno what consultant bubble you live in, but that is not the case for most of the world. People can not automatically just go convert time to money, not that many would even want to. Foraging can be a lot more rewarding than grinding away in some meaningless uber-for-whatever-gig-work.

Also, it seems for example going to earn extra money from Uber etc kills more people than mushrooms in the US (... where I am assuming you are from).

> In the United States, mushroom poisoning kills an average of about 3 people a year. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_poisoning

> at least 50 gig drivers for companies like Uber, Lyft and DoorDash had been killed while on the job in the United States [between 2017-2022] > https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/business/uber-lyft-driver...

Mushrooms are very forgiving of spores from other mushrooms and easily include them into their structures. So much so that they are considered promiscuous. No book will help you with this in the emergency room. Why take a chance? Go to the gricery store and have a comfortable dinner. And, please keep this in mind: the President of the Boston mycology club died of mushroom poisoning, and he was surounded by "mushroom experts".

> And, please keep this in mind: the President of the Boston mycology club died of mushroom poisoning, and he was surounded by "mushroom experts".

Do you have a link for that? My web searches brought up 0 hits for this.

If microscopic spores from poisonous mushrooms can render edible mushrooms deadly, then how can you trust even grocery store mushrooms? They aren't grown in sealed semiconductor fab cleanrooms.

I've only heard of look-alike mushroom deaths, never a death caused by an ostensibly safe species of mushroom that was being promiscuous with deadly spores. Can you substantiate this threat?

Social media can be really helpful or really dangerous. Some groups are strict and full of mycologists. Others are full of people with dangerous ideas and wrong identifications.

A safe way is to start out with a modern regional book which has a list of similar mushrooms and updated view on toxicity. A good book will also tell you which mushrooms are not considered safe to pick because they are impossible or very hard to tell apart from poisonous ones with the naked eye, or when they are too similar but both are fine to eat.

Then you go out to find both the edible mushroom and as many as possible of the similar ones. One or two mushrooms each time. Then when you are completely sure what you are picking you can start eating it and move on to a new delicious mushroom to eat.

Also covered by another Australian journalist here:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/09/mushr...

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Not just any two couples, one couple was her ex-husband's parents...

That right there moves it solidly into "planned action", but I don't have much available data.

Imagine randomly accusing someone of multiple murders on the internet with absolutely no proof.

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.

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.

In English we often use the same word 'evidence' when speaking of weak circumstantial evidence and conclusive direct and damning evidence (e.g. "proof"). I think it must be similar in whatever your native language is, because some way to express this nuance is vital to the pursuit of justice. What you essentially said above is that nobody should be accused of murder on the internet if there isn't conclusive evidence. But if I'm seen covered in blood walking away from a murder scene hours before the murder is reported, why shouldn't people on the internet speculate that I'm the murderer? All they have against me is circumstantial evidence, not conclusive evidence e.g. proof, but it's certainly reasonable for people to say they think I did it. Maybe they're wrong, but their suspicions are still reasonable even if they happen to be wrong.

Somebody dying or being grievously injured after a meal you prepared is circumstantial evidence. Yourself being unharmed is further circumstantial evidence, as is your children being unharmed. Your spouse suffering from some manner of GI-related injury and then his parents being poisoned to death in a separate incident, both after eating meals prepared by you, is circumstantial evidence. This is a lot of circumstantial evidence.

In this case the circumstantial evidence isn't proof of anything. It's probably not enough to convict, I think there is reasonable doubt (mushrooms can be misidentified, the kids may have refused to eat the mushrooms because 'mushrooms are icky', the husband might have been injured by something else, etc) But it's certainly enough circumstantial evidence for casual observers to reasonably suspect murder, and for authorities to start an investigation.

“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?

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.

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

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.

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_an...

Do you know if Australia has a similar method?

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

No that's horrible actually. It is almost always worse for the accused, and better for the police. If you talk, they win and if you don't you lose.

I'm Canadian so it's not like this (not talking to the cops being the better option) is unique to the US.

It's better for getting to the truth in a timely manor.

Its basically civil discovery except for a criminal matter. Good luck in a civil case bringing up some evidence at the 11th hour when its obvious to the other side you had that evidence from the start.

Also, you don't have to talk in the UK just like the US. You still have the right to be silent.

I find that absurd. How can giving the police information that can exonerate you always be a bad idea? It seems like people have entered this weird behavior where they follow guidance blindly.

EDIT: And after watching some of the video the presenter seems to be making the case that you should never interact with the police. And maybe even moreso -- maybe never communicate at all w/o your lawyer since there are laws you may be breaking at any point in time that you may not realize.

If prosecution doesn't care about the truth, and the police happily will comopletely fabricate out of thin air, and you regularly break laws you aren't even aware of -- it seems like talking to police is a relatively small problem.

"I did not commit the crime" is a pointless statement even if you repeat it a hundred times. No one is going to believe you. It can't be brought up in court. It is hearsay.

"I committed the crime" on the other hand is an instant confession and conviction.

So the best advice is always – keep your mouth shut.

parent comment roughly paraphrased the advice... the core advice is to never speak to police WITHOUT YOUR LAWYER present.

Certainly providing the menu that might exonerate you is probably fine -- but that's what a lawyer is for.

If you’re going to make the claim it was an accident, it’s best you do that through a lawyer negotiating on your behalf, or in court - not in an interrogation room full of people who believe it was malice and will leap on any misspoken words to paint you as a murderer. If you’re being accused of multiple homicide, you better bet you shouldn’t just start volunteering random information that you /think/ will exonerate you.

Just because you're telling the truth doesn't mean that they'll present it to the court in a way that makes it seem like the truth. If they want to convict you, witnesses will show up pinning you to the crime. That, or they'll use "interrogation" tactics to get you to "confess" when you're innocent. It's mindgames to close the case early. The U.S. has a worrying amount of wrongful convictions, for many reasons.

To sum it up: never speak to police without a lawyer.

The problem with this and the video provided above is if the police are going to just completely fabricate statements you make then they can also fabricate that you decided to speak to them and confess.

Knowing several officers, including some id never want to run across as part of their job, I do think they are far more likely to fabricate something that corroborates what they actually believe to be true.

That is if they come by and ask you what you saw the night your neighbors house was broken into and your response is “I’d like to talk to my lawyer”, seems like you just bought yourself a whole lot of headache for probably no good reason.

A headache now is better than a prison sentence later.

Being raised where I was I've probably interacted with the police 50x in my life. Usually things just like that, "did you see the guy in the car?" or "do you know where they live?". I've never once been to jail or even been asked to go to the police station. But I do know quite a few people hauled in for refusing to say anything. Not sure it was legal, but I feel like most police simply aren't trying to just grab random people around a crime to bring in (and I was taught to run if you see police, but that also just seemed counterproductive to me). And if they've decided that you're the guy they want to bring in, good luck with "talk to my lawyer". It sounds like they'll just make up your narrative for you. That is, it seems almost more likely that this is going to invite attention and likelihood of prison time.

Police are trained to get you to incriminate yourself. They will twist your words of innocence into evidence of guilt, i.e., you say, "I went to the kitchen for a knife so he could cut his steak.", but the police write down, "suspect went to kitchen to grab knife."

Despite what popular culture teaches us, the truth isn't going to come out because crack team of investigators using DNA and cool tech to magically solve a case. The police are going to pick an easy target to pin everything on, and trick them into giving enough information for the prosecution to strong arm a plea deal.

It's not about justice, it's about solving cases with the lowest possible effort.

> The police are going to pick an easy target to pin everything on, and trick them into giving enough information for the prosecution to strong arm a plea deal.

Isn't that effectively Occam's Razor [1]? The guy with the worst defense should be the culprit.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Did you watch the video? It’s explained in the video.

Learn about the concept of hearsay...

Because if your memory is jumpy or you're tired, and you make a mistake, especially on location or temporality, they will absolutely use it against you (especially if you fit the profile they have in mind) and kill you for it (literally in some US states). Never talk to the police without a lawyer.

My father ended up a night in jail because he gave in good faith poor information (that they still used). Don't talk to the police. Even if you're white: as long as you're not in a suit, don't do it.

> It seems like people have entered this weird behavior where they follow guidance blindly.

And people watch too many police procedurals (tv shows). The cop you're talking to only has one job: gather evidence. It's not his job to determine your guilt or innocence or whether the evidence rises to the level where the DA will file charges. Telling him something that can exonerate you does nothing for you. Your lawyer needs to make sure that evidence is available to the DA (if you want to avoid charges being filed) or the jury, if it gets that far.

> How can giving the police information that can exonerate you always be a bad idea?

Hearsay. If you hear somebody say they committed a crime, it's not the same as witnessing them commit the crime. Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence. It goes the same way with what you told the police. The cop you're talking to hasn't witnessed anything. He can only repeat what you've said, which is inadmissible.

The police can’t exonerate you

I don't quite agree with this, and I don't think it's what the video is saying. There's never, ever, ever a reason to talk to the police without a lawyer. But, under the advice of counsel and as part of a well planned defense, saying certain things may make sense.

If she declined to tell police then presumably they would charge her and let a jury decide if it is beyond a reasonable doubt that these four people ate the poisonous mushroom at her lunch.

Apparently it was beef wellington pie https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/10/victo...

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com