Newborn photoshoot ended in assault charges
An eastern suburbs photographer found not guilty of spraying a weeks-old baby with cleaning chemicals has failed in her bid to claim $99,000 in legal costs, branding the process 'a complete waste of time'.
The family of Baby N, a court-appointed pseudonym, arrived at Natalia Mikhaylova's Matraville studios in May 2021 for a newborn photoshoot, half an hour late because of traffic.
Several disputes ensued, culminating in the family being asked to leave.
'She [the baby's mother] came in demanding extras. She wanted three adults' entry, which was against the terms and conditions. She wanted me to wrap her baby. I didn't, and she intimidated me the whole time. She placed her baby recklessly in the prop, face down, and I stopped her,' Mikhaylova told the Herald.
A mobile phone video, taken from inside the baby's mother's pocket, recorded Mikhaylova saying 'I'm going to spray cleaning stuff on your baby so that you leave' and 'I'm going to spray your baby. Can you leave now?'
The baby's mother responds by yelling 'You sprayed on my baby!' and 'How can you spray cleaning solution on the baby?', according to court documents seen by this masthead.
Mikhaylova claims the video was doctored and withheld from evidence by police.
The baby's mother reported Mikhaylova to police. Mikhaylova told the officer during an interview that she did not threaten to spray the baby but asked the woman to leave so she could clean, as per COVID requirements at the time. She was charged with two counts of common assault three days after the incident.
Mikhaylova initially had a solicitor but later told the Local Court she was 'unemployable' and had no money, and that she and her lawyers didn't see eye to eye on what she branded the 'tampered video'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
3 hours ago
- West Australian
Erin Patterson verdict: Jury deliberating in alleged mushroom killer's triple murder beef Wellington trial
Erin Patterson, the alleged mushroom killer, will soon learn her fate in the triple murder trial over deaths arising from her death cap mushroom, beef Wellington lunch. The trial, coming out of the usually quiet regional Victorian town of Morwell, has made global headlines, truly becoming a case that fascinated the world. The Crown argues that Ms Patterson intentionally put death cap mushrooms in the meal, while the accused's defence argues that it was a tragic accident. Now in its 10th week, Justice Christopher Beale has delivered his final remarks from his charge, now tasking the jury to deliberate and reach a verdict. The lunch on July 29, 2023, was served by Ms Patterson at her Leongatha home to in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister and her husband, Heather and Ian Wilkinson. Only the accused and Mr Wilkinson survived. It was a 'special' lunch, the accused admitted in court, to thank her family and spend time with them amid concerns of growing distance from her separation with former partner Simon Patterson, Don and Gail's parents. The evidence the jury will now focus on includes the accused's court testimony, where she detailed a history of lies that she told, including ones about illness that she didn't have and the ownership and use of a food dehydrator. However, Justice Beale has warned the jury that those lies may not be enough to find Ms Patterson guilty. 'That is not to say just because you find she lied about one matter that she lied about everything else,' he told the jury. 'It is for you to decide what significance to give these alleged lies.' Ms Patterson has pleaded not guilty and denies intentionally killing her lunch guests with a death cap mushroom beef Wellington. The court has been told that Ms Patterson had an interest in mushrooms, something that she says developed around the time of the first COVID-19 lockdown in 2020. It has also heard about her 'experiments', where the accused was dehydrating mushrooms, testing out different timings to see how long was needed to remove moisture. Ms Patterson told the court how she would put mushrooms that she found and dehydrated into a blender, reducing them to a dust that she could 'hide' in food. She says she did this to give her children more vegetables. Evidence of internet records has been shown to the jury that indicated devices connected to Ms Patterson had accessed maps that showed the location of death cap mushrooms in Victoria. Ms Patterson denies foraging for death cap mushrooms, instead suggesting that they likely came from an Asian grocer in Melbourne, where she purchased a pungent-smelling fungi, which she fears made it into the meal. Ian Wilkinson, the sole-surviving lunch guest, has accused Ms Patterson of using a coloured plate system to distinguish which meal was given to which guest at the fatal lunch, something the accused denied. He claims that Ms Patterson told her lunch guests that she had cancer, something she denies. The alleged mushroom murderer doesn't deny insinuating that she was unwell with a fabricated illness, stopping short of agreeing that she said 'cancer', something she claims she did to cover for weight-loss surgery she claims she was planning on having. After the lunch, Ms Patterson went on with her day-to-day life, despite claiming to be suffering from a violent gastrointestinal illness before she decided that she needed to go to the hospital. By that time, Don and Gail Patterson, along with Heather and Ian Wilkinson, were already in the hospital, with medical staff working on the suspicion that they were suffering from death cap mushroom poisoning. Ms Patterson claims she told staff that she had purchased mushrooms from her local Woolworths and used them in the lunch, but didn't share that she had an interest in mushrooms, that she experimented with dehydrating mushrooms, or that dehydrated mushrooms that she had picked were in her home. It is a secret that Ms Patterson kept for some time. After being treated and discharged from the hospital, she returned to her home and disposed of her food dehydrator, taking it to a tip, concealed in a bag, and throwing it on a pile of rubbish. Ms Patterson later admitted she had disposed of the dehydrator because she was worried it might tie her death cap mushroom poisoning of her lunch guests, something she feared could have her children removed from her. On Monday, the 14 person jury was reduced to 12 in a random ballot. Jurors then retired to commence their deliberation. The court has told media and curious on-lookers that once a verdict has been reached, there will be little notice provided before court resumes.
Perth Now
3 hours ago
- Perth Now
Jury deliberation in mushroom murder trial begins
Erin Patterson, the alleged mushroom killer, will soon learn her fate in the triple murder trial over deaths arising from her death cap mushroom, beef Wellington lunch. The trial, coming out of the usually quiet regional Victorian town of Morwell, has made global headlines, truly becoming a case that fascinated the world. The Crown argues that Ms Patterson intentionally put death cap mushrooms in the meal, while the accused's defence argues that it was a tragic accident. Now in its 10th week, Justice Christopher Beale has delivered his final remarks from his charge, now tasking the jury to deliberate and reach a verdict. The lunch on July 29, 2023, was served by Ms Patterson at her Leongatha home to in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister and her husband, Heather and Ian Wilkinson. Only the accused and Mr Wilkinson survived. It was a 'special' lunch, the accused admitted in court, to thank her family and spend time with them amid concerns of growing distance from her separation with former partner Simon Patterson, Don and Gail's parents. Erin Patterson. Credit: Paul Tyquin / AAP The evidence the jury will now focus on includes the accused's court testimony, where she detailed a history of lies that she told, including ones about illness that she didn't have and the ownership and use of a food dehydrator. However, Justice Beale has warned the jury that those lies may not be enough to find Ms Patterson guilty. 'That is not to say just because you find she lied about one matter that she lied about everything else,' he told the jury. 'It is for you to decide what significance to give these alleged lies.' Ms Patterson has pleaded not guilty and denies intentionally killing her lunch guests with a death cap mushroom beef Wellington. The court has been told that Ms Patterson had an interest in mushrooms, something that she says developed around the time of the first COVID-19 lockdown in 2020. It has also heard about her 'experiments', where the accused was dehydrating mushrooms, testing out different timings to see how long was needed to remove moisture. Ms Patterson told the court how she would put mushrooms that she found and dehydrated into a blender, reducing them to a dust that she could 'hide' in food. She says she did this to give her children more vegetables. Evidence of internet records has been shown to the jury that indicated devices connected to Ms Patterson had accessed maps that showed the location of death cap mushrooms in Victoria. Ms Patterson denies foraging for death cap mushrooms, instead suggesting that they likely came from an Asian grocer in Melbourne, where she purchased a pungent-smelling fungi, which she fears made it into the meal. Ian Wilkinson, the sole-surviving lunch guest, has accused Ms Patterson of using a coloured plate system to distinguish which meal was given to which guest at the fatal lunch, something the accused denied. Ian Wilkinson was the only surviving guest of Erin Patterson's beef Wellington lunch. Credit: James Ross / AAP He claims that Ms Patterson told her lunch guests that she had cancer, something she denies. The alleged mushroom murderer doesn't deny insinuating that she was unwell with a fabricated illness, stopping short of agreeing that she said 'cancer', something she claims she did to cover for weight-loss surgery she claims she was planning on having. After the lunch, Ms Patterson went on with her day-to-day life, despite claiming to be suffering from a violent gastrointestinal illness before she decided that she needed to go to the hospital. By that time, Don and Gail Patterson, along with Heather and Ian Wilkinson, were already in the hospital, with medical staff working on the suspicion that they were suffering from death cap mushroom poisoning. Ms Patterson claims she told staff that she had purchased mushrooms from her local Woolworths and used them in the lunch, but didn't share that she had an interest in mushrooms, that she experimented with dehydrating mushrooms, or that dehydrated mushrooms that she had picked were in her home. Erin Patterson's former partner Simon Patterson. Credit: James Ross / AAP It is a secret that Ms Patterson kept for some time. After being treated and discharged from the hospital, she returned to her home and disposed of her food dehydrator, taking it to a tip, concealed in a bag, and throwing it on a pile of rubbish. Ms Patterson later admitted she had disposed of the dehydrator because she was worried it might tie her death cap mushroom poisoning of her lunch guests, something she feared could have her children removed from her. On Monday, the 14 person jury was reduced to 12 in a random ballot. Jurors then retired to commence their deliberation. The court has told media and curious on-lookers that once a verdict has been reached, there will be little notice provided before court resumes.
The Age
a day ago
- The Age
Newborn photoshoot ended in assault charges
An eastern suburbs photographer found not guilty of spraying a weeks-old baby with cleaning chemicals has failed in her bid to claim $99,000 in legal costs, branding the process 'a complete waste of time'. The family of Baby N, a court-appointed pseudonym, arrived at Natalia Mikhaylova's Matraville studios in May 2021 for a newborn photoshoot, half an hour late because of traffic. Several disputes ensued, culminating in the family being asked to leave. 'She [the baby's mother] came in demanding extras. She wanted three adults' entry, which was against the terms and conditions. She wanted me to wrap her baby. I didn't, and she intimidated me the whole time. She placed her baby recklessly in the prop, face down, and I stopped her,' Mikhaylova told the Herald. A mobile phone video, taken from inside the baby's mother's pocket, recorded Mikhaylova saying 'I'm going to spray cleaning stuff on your baby so that you leave' and 'I'm going to spray your baby. Can you leave now?' The baby's mother responds by yelling 'You sprayed on my baby!' and 'How can you spray cleaning solution on the baby?', according to court documents seen by this masthead. Mikhaylova claims the video was doctored and withheld from evidence by police. The baby's mother reported Mikhaylova to police. Mikhaylova told the officer during an interview that she did not threaten to spray the baby but asked the woman to leave so she could clean, as per COVID requirements at the time. She was charged with two counts of common assault three days after the incident. Mikhaylova initially had a solicitor but later told the Local Court she was 'unemployable' and had no money, and that she and her lawyers didn't see eye to eye on what she branded the 'tampered video'.
