Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 62 posts

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

#41

Post by mcpackieh »

jbottoms wrote: post #26
kevinmchugh wrote: post #4

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 sa…

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…

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?

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

#42

Post by brmgb »

mcpackieh wrote: post #40
brmgb wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#43

Post by kenjackson »

catboybotnet wrote: post #27
kenjackson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

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 su…

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.

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

#44

Post by [deleted] »

lylejantzi3rd wrote: post #37
kenjackson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

> 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 ne…

[deleted]

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

#45

Post by clarens »

kevinmchugh wrote: post #4

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 sa…

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.

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

#46

Post by lylejantzi3rd »

lesuorac wrote: post #17
lylejantzi3rd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

#47

Post by voisin »

kenjackson wrote: post #5

“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?

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.

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

#48

Post by sinkwool »

mcpackieh wrote: post #31
frontman1988 wrote: post #22

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.

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

#49

Post by lesuorac »

lylejantzi3rd wrote: post #46
lesuorac wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

#50

Post by kevinmchugh »

enlyth wrote: post #36
galleywest200 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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.

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.
Post reply on HN