Beloved pet bulldog survives month lost in Victorian bush
Tavleen Singh
and
Zaida Glibanovic
, ABC
Hank the Tank survived a month away from home after disappearing into the Gippsland bush. (Supplied)
Photo:
Supplied
A stocky pet bulldog named Hank the Tank has defied the odds by returning home a month after he disappeared into dense bushland in regional Victoria.
The
dog was missing
for 30 days and four hours before finding his way back into the arms of his owner and best friend, Pakenham police officer Paul Lester.
"For him to go missing, it was absolutely heartbreaking," he said.
Mr Lester believes Hank spent the month lost in the chilly, dense bush of Bunyip State Park in Victoria's Gippsland region.
Hank vanished on May 15 from a property at Tonimbuk, north of Bunyip in west Gippsland, where Mr Lester was house-sitting.
The property backs onto the state park and the mountain bulldog cross took off with the house owner's dog, Benji, into a stretch of dense bushland known for its steep terrain, wild animals and freezing winter nights.
Benji returned two days later, but there was still no sign of Hank, who Mr Lester adopted from a rescue shelter in 2019.
Paul Lester with Hank, a mountain bulldog cross. (Supplied)
Photo:
Supplied
"Hank's very important to me," Mr Lester said.
"I was … going through a bit of a tough time back then, through some workplace injuries.
"Hank just sort of put me back on the right path and changed my life.
"He has been like my son ever since."
Hank's disappearance didn't raise a red flag immediately because he was known to chase rabbits.
"He is a natural boofhead," Mr Lester said.
"One time he tried to cuddle a kangaroo and didn't know what to do."
But when Hank didn't show up for days Mr Lester started to worry and went to extraordinary lengths to find him.
He installed roadside cameras, used drones and appealed to local horseriders and dirt bikers to help with the search.
Then on June 15, Mr Lester, who was still house-sitting, noticed a white fuzzy thing in the backyard and couldn't believe his eyes.
"It just hit me … that is Hank, just sunbaking near his favourite lavender bush," Mr Lester said.
"Looking at me with the biggest dopiest look on his face, like, 'Oh, g'day mate, where have you been?'"
Hank is known to "steal" his owner's police uniform vests from time to time. (Supplied)
Photo:
Supplied
The usually fit dog of 30 kilograms had lost a significant amount of weight and was a "muddy heap of mess".
"He has lost about 12 kilos or so, his ribs were exposed," Mr Lester said.
"I know there is no McDonald's down in the Bunyip State Park, so he would have been roughing it out there."
Now safely home, Hank the Tank is back to doing what he loves best: lounging in the sun and being by Mr Lester's side.
-
ABC
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Second man charged after Melbourne childcare worker accused of 70 offences
By Danny Tran , Ben Butler and Andi Yu , ABC A police cordon in Australia. Photo: AFP/ ABC Far North - Isaac Egan Police investigating a Melbourne childcare worker accused of child sex crimes have charged a second man with serious offences, including bestiality. Michael Simon Wilson, of Wyndham Vale, is also facing charges related to child abuse material and sex offences, according to the Melbourne Magistrates' Court. He and childcare worker Joshua Dale Brown will next face the court in September. Brown is facing more than 70 charges allegedly involving children at the Creative Garden Early Learning centre in Point Cook, in Melbourne's western suburbs, between April 2022 and January 2023. Police have said there is no evidence to suggest any other staff in any other centre were involved in Mr Brown's alleged offending. It comes as the Victorian government has announced it will fast-track reforms to the childcare sector following the charges against Brown. Premier Jacinta Allan announced on Wednesday her government would create a register of childcare workers "as soon as possible" to provide extra scrutiny. "Acknowledging that there is work to create a national register of childcare workers, more needs to happen now," she said. "We will start building the Victorian register to give families an extra layer of checks and balances as soon as possible." Allan also announced the government would move to ban personal devices from childcare centres from 26 September. She said the ban could become a licence condition and could earn centres fines of up to AUD$50,000 if breached. The Victorian government has also commissioned an urgent review focused on immediate actions, which will be completed in about six weeks. "This will be a short, sharp piece of work that will focus on the immediate actions that we can take based on that body of work that is going on across state and territory jurisdictions," Ms Allan said. The review will consider whether CCTV should be installed in childcare centres. Health authorities yesterday recommended 1200 children linked to centres where Brown worked be tested for infectious disease out of caution. "The risk is low, but there's not no risk, which is why we're making this recommendation," Chief Health Officer Christian McGrath said today. Extra call-takers have also been brought on to assist families contacting a dedicated advice line, after reports of long delays. About 1300 families were supported on Tuesday. Allan said parents contacted about the investigation would be "suffering unbearable pain and uncertainty". She said immediate needs payments of AUD$5000 had been unlocked for directly affected families to cover time off work for parents, health appointments and other needs. - ABC
RNZ News
3 days ago
- RNZ News
The evidence laid before the jury in Erin Patterson's murder trial
By Joseph Dunstan , Madi Chwasta and Gabrielle Flood Erin Patterson is alleged to have laced a meal with death cap mushrooms resulting in the deaths of three people. Photo: Screenshot / ABC As they retire to consider their verdicts, the jurors in Erin Patterson's triple-murder trial have no shortage of evidence to reflect upon. More than 50 witnesses have given testimony and the hearings have stretched for nine weeks. Here are the people and places at the heart of the trial. The trial centres on a lunch hosted by Erin at her Leongatha home in Victoria's South Gippsland region on 29 July, 2023. Erin hosted four people that day: her parents-in-law Don and Gail Patterson, along with Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson and her husband Ian. Erin's estranged husband Simon Patterson was also invited, but turned down the offer. Don, Gail and Heather all died from death cap mushroom poisoning after the beef Wellington lunch, while Ian survived after weeks in hospital. How Erin Patterson is related to her lunch guests. Photo: ABC News Prosecutors have alleged that Erin deliberately laced the meal with death caps. But the 50-year-old has maintained her innocence, telling the court that foraged mushrooms made their way into the meal by mistake. Prosecutors did not allege a specific motive for Erin Patterson to murder three relatives and attempt to murder a fourth. But they did take the jury through what they alleged was growing anger and resentment the accused felt towards the Pattersons. The court heard that by late 2022, there was a disagreement between Erin Patterson and her estranged husband over finances, including school and doctor's fees for their children. At one point, the court heard Erin had tried to bring in her in-laws - Don and Gail Patterson - to help mediate the situation. The prosecution highlighted to the jury Facebook messages in which Erin Patterson used strong language to express frustration with her parents-in-law about their reluctance to get involved in their financial dispute. Patterson told the court while she was feeling hurt, frustrated and "a little bit desperate", her relationship with her in-laws had remained positive and she was ashamed of the disrespectful language she had used while venting to her Facebook friends. Her defence lawyer Colin Mandy SC accused the prosecution of highlighting a handful of messages from a brief episode of tension, producing a distorted impression. "It was such a polite, kind and good relationship that these messages stand out, but they're not consistent with the whole of the relationship," Mandy said. Patterson said a desire to build a stronger relationship had motivated her to invite her in-laws to lunch. In the years leading up to the lunch, Erin's life was largely based in the towns of Leongatha and Korumburra. The two South Gippsland communities sit pretty close to one another, each with populations of a few thousand people. It was in this region that Erin Patterson told the court she began foraging mushrooms during Victoria's Covid-19 lockdowns in 2020 and 2021. Eventually, she said she felt she had gathered enough knowledge to taste some of the mushrooms she had foraged during walks near the two towns. "They tasted good and I didn't get sick," she said. Her defence lawyer said this "burgeoning" interest in foraging had led Erin to investigate whether the notorious death cap mushroom species grew in her area in May 2022. The court heard she turned to a website called iNaturalist, where users share observations from nature to a community map. When Erin visited the site in 2022, no death caps were flagged in the South Gippsland area. But in the months before her lunch, two sightings were posted to iNaturalist at Loch and Outtrim. The prosecution alleged mobile phone data supported the claim that Erin travelled to Loch and Outtrim shortly after death caps were identified there to deliberately forage the deadly species. But her defence team raised questions over the accuracy of the mobile phone tower data being used by the prosecution to reach those conclusions. They told the jury Erin had been foraging at places like the Korumburra Botanic Gardens in the lead-up to the lunch, but not at Loch and Outtrim. As well as foraging mushrooms before the lunch, Erin said she had bought dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer in Melbourne's south-east. Erin told the court the grocer-bought mushrooms were ultimately mixed up with foraged mushrooms in a plastic container in her Leongatha pantry. She said it was this container of mixed mushrooms she later drew upon to remedy a "bland" mushroom paste for the beef Wellington lunch - with disastrous consequences. The court heard that after the lunch guests fell fatally ill, Erin was unable to identify the store to health officials, who were urgently chasing up information about potential death caps in circulation. Instead she offered a number of suburbs to those questioning her, variously identifying Oakleigh, Clayton, Mount Waverley or Glen Waverley. A council worker began visiting Asian-style grocery stores in the area. However, their efforts failed to find any product matching Erin's description and the health department concluded its investigation. Erin rejected the prosecution claim that the story about an Asian grocer was a lie created by her as part of her cover-up after the lunch. The day of the lunch, Erin finalised the special meal of individually parcelled beef Wellingtons for her guests. She rejected a prosecution claim that deviations to the recipe were made to ensure only her guests were served meals laced with deadly mushrooms. Erin told the court she and her guests ate from plates that may have been black, white, and red on top and black underneath and nobody was given any one particular plate. That account given to the court differs from that of surviving lunch guest Ian Wilkinson, who told the trial the guests had eaten from grey plates, while Erin had eaten from a smaller, orange-coloured plate. Ian also told the court that Erin had informed her guests she had been diagnosed with cancer and was worried about how to tell her children. Erin disputed that she had told her relatives a cancer diagnosis had been made, but agreed she had lied about possibly needing cancer treatment in the future. She told the court she did not have cancer and had told the lie to conceal private plans to have gastric-bypass surgery. "I was really embarrassed, I was ashamed of the fact that I didn't have control over my body or what I ate, I was ashamed of that … I didn't want to tell anybody, but I shouldn't have lied to them," she said. In the days after the lunch, the guests began falling ill. Erin told the court this included her, but also that she had binge eaten some cake and vomited shortly after her guests had left. Erin Patterson's Leongatha home, where she hosted the lunch. Photo: ABC News Ultimately, Erin and the four guests were transferred to hospitals in Melbourne, where Gail, Don and Heather later died. Ian survived after a weeks-long stay in intensive care. Doctors have told the court the medical tests which revealed signs of death cap poisoning in the four lunch guests did not show the same markers for Erin. The prosecution alleged Erin had faked her illness as part of her cover-up - a claim rejected by her lawyer, who said there were many valid reasons why she may not have fallen as ill as her guests. On Wednesday, having already been discharged from hospital in Melbourne, Erin made a trip to the local tip. This is where she dumped a food dehydrator. Erin told the court she'd taken the dehydrator to the tip because she was aware by that point that death cap mushrooms were the suspected source of poisoning in the meal, and she had been using the appliance to dehydrate foraged mushrooms. But she refuted the prosecution's suggestion that she had knowingly dehydrated toxic mushrooms. A week after the lunch, homicide detectives visited Erin at her Leongatha home and told her they were investigating the deadly lunch. In the 5 August search, they seized a number of devices, including a mobile phone which the court heard Erin had performed three factory resets on. One of these was carried out on the day of the search, which came days after Erin said Simon had accused her of poisoning his parents with mushrooms prepared in her dehydrator. "I knew that there were photos in there of mushrooms and the dehydrator and I just panicked and didn't want them [police] to see them," Erin told the court. Hours after the police search, Erin ran the third factory reset remotely, as the phone sat in a police station in Melbourne. "It was really stupid, but I thought I wonder if they've been silly enough to leave it connected to the internet and so I hit factory reset to see what happened, and it did," she said. Detectives returned months later, when they ran a second search of her home, and ultimately laid murder and attempted murder charges against Erin Patterson in November. More than 18 months later, after jurors had heard weeks of evidence in a Gippsland court, Justice Christopher Beale gave his final directions before they retired to consider the verdicts. "You are the only ones in this court who can make a decision about these facts," he told the jury. The jury continues to deliberate. - ABC
RNZ News
3 days ago
- RNZ News
How jurors will decide the outcome of Erin Patterson's mushroom triple-murder trial
A handout sketch received from the Supreme Court of Victoria shows Erin Patterson, an Australian woman accused of murdering three people with a toxic mushroom-laced beef Wellington. Photo: AFP / PAUL TYQUIN By Judd Boaz , ABC More than nine weeks of legal proceedings have unfolded in Erin Patterson's murder trial , with the jury now set to deliberate on its verdict. Patterson is accused of murdering three relatives and attempting to murder a fourth at a lunch at her home in Leongatha, south-east of Melbourne, on July 29, 2023. She has pleaded not guilty to all charges, with her lawyers arguing the incident was a tragic accident. A panel of jurors, who have watched the proceedings take place in the town of Morwell from start to finish, will now decide whether or not the alleged crimes have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Here's what we know about how juries deliberate in Victoria. Those who travelled to Morwell to watch the trial in person may have initially seen 15 potential jurors empanelled. Members of the media gather outside the Latrobe Valley Magistrates' Court for the trial of triple-murder suspect Erin Patterson in Morwell. Photo: AFP / MARTIN KEEP This is because the Supreme Court empanelled an extra three people in case a potential juror fell sick or was discharged. We saw the importance of this measure first-hand on May 15, when Justice Christopher Beale opened court proceedings on what he described as "an unhappy note". Justice Beale told the panel that one of their fellow jurors had been removed based on "credible" information given to the court. "I received information that he had been discussing the case with family and friends, contrary to my instructions," the judge said. "I was of the view that it was at least a reasonable possibility that the information I'd received was credible." He ordered the jury not to contact the discharged juror. The two reserve jurors were balloted off after the judge gave his final directions to the jury, leaving 12 people to determine whether to acquit or convict Patterson of the four charges. The jury has now attended the court almost every weekday for nearly two months. More than 50 prosecution witnesses were called to give evidence, from fungi experts who logged the location of deadly death cap mushrooms in Gippsland, to the nurses and doctors who treated all five attendees of the lunch for poisoning symptoms. The prosecution alleges Erin Patterson foraged for death cap mushrooms intentionally. Photo: Supplied/iNaturalist Photos of a dehydrator that Patterson admitted to throwing away in panic and detailed phone and hospital records were among the dozens of pieces of evidence shown to the jury across several weeks. When it came time for Patterson's legal team to call a witness, defence barrister Colin Mandy SC put Patterson herself in the witness box. After several days of emotional testimony where Patterson shed tears watching footage of police interviewing her children, the prosecution began its cross-examination. Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC engaged in several days of at-times tense questioning, regularly putting suggestions of guilt to Patterson, which she strongly denied. Following Patterson's testimony, both Mandy and Rogers made their closing addresses to the jury, recapping their cases to the jury over the course of several days. Finally, Justice Beale presented his final instructions to the jury over several days, telling the panel it must limit its deliberations to evidence presented before the court. "You are the only ones in this court who can make a decision about these facts," he said. "No one in the media, in public, in your workplace or in your homes have sat in that jury box throughout [this trial] … you and you alone are best placed to decide whether the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt." Erin Patterson speaking to media prior to being charged. Photo: ABC News When it comes to deciding whether Patterson is guilty of murder or not, the jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the four legal elements of that charge have been met. Those are: Justice Beale told the jury on Monday that what was in dispute was whether the serving of the poisonous meal was deliberate and whether it was done with murderous intent. The judge explained that for the charge of attempted murder, the jury needed to be satisfied Patterson had intended to kill Ian Wilkinson, and that an intention to cause really serious injury was not applicable. As the defence reminded the jury in both its opening and closing arguments, the onus is on the prosecution to prove Patterson intentionally poisoned her relatives - in other words, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Ian Wilkinson (left) was the only guest to survive the lunch. His wife Heather Wilkinson, and Don and Gail Patterson all died from suspected mushroom poisoning. Photo: ABC / Supplied Ian Wilkinson (left) was the only guest to survive the lunch. His wife Heather Wilkinson, and Don and Gail Patterson all died. On the opening day of the trial, Mandy urged the jury to consider this as a scale. "Remember that scale: innocent down here," he said. "That's your starting point: open mind. "Guilt is all the way up there," he said as he gestured higher. Jurors have also been warned about the risk widespread media coverage poses to the high-profile case. Global media attention has shrouded the case for weeks. Justice Beale has explicitly warned jurors to reject any approaches from friends and family keen to discuss the case. He also warned them against undertaking their own investigations, such as visiting websites named in the trial or searching relevant locations online. Jurors who carry out their own research don't only risk an unfair trial; they also risk committing contempt, which can be a criminal offence. We will never know. Deliberations are kept strictly confidential. Jurors must not share what took place to anyone - even after a verdict has been reached. The secrecy of deliberations is a key part of the justice system, and what determines a jury's decision is never publicly revealed. "It's difficult to get access to jurors, but there's good reason for it," Professor Horan said. However, jurors are not completely left to their own devices. They may ask questions of the judge or request to see certain evidence again, but that doesn't always happen. On Monday the jury was told they would deliberate from Monday to Saturday. They will be sequestered, meaning they will not go home during the week and on Sundays. That's one question we can't really answer. Remember, the jury's verdicts must be unanimous, meaning all 12 panel members have to agree. Suffice it to say that deliberations will take as long as they need to. Given the requirement for a unanimous verdict, even one dissenting member can cause a "hung jury", meaning no unanimous verdict can be reached. Without trying to influence jurors' verdicts, the judge may offer assistance to prevent that outcome. But in the event that the jury remains unable to reach a consensus and a hung jury is declared, they will be discharged, and a new trial eventually held. On Monday, Justice Beale told the jury their verdict must be unanimous on each charge, but that that did not mean they must all reach their decisions the same way. "No matter how you reach your verdict, you must all agree," he said. - ABC
