Here's what the jury heard on day 34 of Erin Patterson's trial
Patterson’s defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, said his client was “not on trial for being a liar”. He told jurors the court was not one of “moral judgment”.
The prosecution’s case that Patterson wanted her estranged husband, Simon, to attend the lunch so she could kill him was “absurd”, Mandy said.
The defence said the jury should reject the evidence from the sole surviving lunch guest, Ian Wilkinson, that Patterson served her guests on four large grey plates while eating from an orangey-tan coloured plate. Mandy said Ian was “honestly mistaken”.
Mandy said the December 2022 Facebook group chat messages, where Patterson said her in-laws were a “lost cause”, were being used by the prosecution as a distraction from the evidence in the case. He said the messages, which related to a disagreement over child support with Simon, stood out because they were about the only disagreement between Patterson and her in-laws.
Mandy says online searches about death cap mushrooms – discovered on a computer police seized from Patterson’s house – showed his client’s “idle curiosity” and not a person “carefully studying this information”.
Updated
The court has adjourned for the day.
Patterson’s trial will continue from 10.30am tomorrow.
Updated
Mandy says there is no evidence to show it’s not possible that Patterson began to experience symptoms of death cap mushroom poisoning earlier than her four lunch guests.
He notes the only evidence about when his client began feeling unwell after the lunch comes from Simon, who said he “vaguely” remembered Patterson mentioning that she became unwell around 4pm or 4.30pm on the day of the lunch.
Updated
Defence tells court Patterson’s age and weight possible factors in her not getting as sick as her guests
Colin Mandy SC says the jury has heard expert evidence that people can experience death cap mushroom poisoning with variation in severity.
A person can experience a “grade one” severity of the illness after eating the same meal as someone who experiences a more severe illness.
He says Dimitri Gerostamoulos, Victoria’s chief toxicologist, said factors like weight and age could influence how a person reacted to the toxins in death cap mushrooms.
He says Patterson weighed over 100kg at the time of the lunch and was significantly younger than her guests.
Updated
Patterson ‘did get sick’ after lunch, court hears
Mandy says his client’s evidence that she ate about half of her beef wellington portion is not contradicted by other witnesses.
He says Patterson was never asked how much she ate when she attended hospital.
Mandy says his client has told the jury that after the lunch guests left she binge ate about two-thirds of an orange cake that Gail had bought, before vomiting. Patterson said it happened later in the afternoon.
Mandy says if Patterson was lying she would have said it happened earlier as a reason why she did not become as unwell as the others.
“Erin did get sick, later that day – obviously her symptoms were milder than others and started earlier,” he says.
Mandy says there is an explanation for this – Patterson was tasting the mushroom paste for the beef wellington while she was cooking the meal.
He points to her evidence that she added dried mushrooms to the dish because it tasted bland.
“At least a few hours before anyone else ate it, she had some,” he says.
Updated
Mandy says there was ‘no holding back one of the plates’ at lunch
Mandy says the evidence of Simon and Erin Patterson’s children aligns with his client’s testimony about the plates.
He says there may have been two black plates but not four grey plates.
Mandy says when Heather asked if Patterson was short of plates, Simon said she was.
Ian previously told the court that Heather and Gail took the four grey plates to the table before Patterson carried the odd-coloured plate to her seat.
Mandy says Heather and Gail are not told which plates to take to the table before lunch.
“There was no instruction,” he says
“There was no holding back one of the plates.”
Mandy says the plates were “randomly selected by the guests”.
Updated
Mandy says Ian Wilkinson ‘honestly mistaken’ over plates
Colin Mandy SC says if Patterson made an unpoisoned beef wellington for herself she would need to mark it in a way to differentiate it from the toxic ones.
“In which case you would not need different coloured plates,” he says.
Earlier in the trial, Ian Wilkinson said Patterson served beef wellingtons for her guests on grey plates while she ate from an “orangey-tan” coloured plate.
Mandy says “it has to be the case that Ian Wilkinson is wrong about what he says”.
He says Ian is “honestly mistaken”.
Mandy says when police searched Patterson’s house a week after the lunch they were aware of the plate issue and found no plates matching Ian’s description.
Simon’s evidence was that Patterson had no sets of matching plates, the court hears.
Simon also testified that the day after the lunch Heather Wilkinson raised Patterson’s mismatched crockery. Mandy points to the evidence of Patterson’s son’s friend who recalled seeing white plates after the lunch.
The video from the police search at Patterson’s house showed two white plates, a few colourful plates and some black plates, Mandy says.
“There weren’t any orangey-tan plates,” he says.
Updated
Not possible accused wanted to 'destroy her whole world', defence says
Mandy says the prosecution’s argument that Patterson wanted Simon at the lunch so she could also kill him is “absurd”.
He says it is not a possible prospect that Patterson wanted to “destroy her whole world”.
Updated
Mushroom photos and phone records
Mandy says the mushroom photos shown to the jury are a “selection” from a report on data extracted from the device.
“The investigators were only interested in these ones and that’s why they’re here before you,” he says.
“It’s not the whole context.”
Mandy says the jury has heard from telecommunications expert Dr Matthew Sorell that Patterson’s phone records showed potential visits to Loch and Outtrim – where death caps had been reported on the iNaturalist website – in the months before the lunch.
The prosecution alleges Patterson visited Outtrim on 22 May – the day after mycologist Dr Thomas May reported a death cap sighting on the iNaturalist website.
Mandy says the prosecution has told the jury that Sorell gave evidence that Patterson’s phone was stationary in the northern part of Outtrim on this day.
He says Sorell did not say this, but gave evidence it was possible the phone could have been in the area.
Updated
Mandy turns to photos of mushrooms on seized device
Colin Mandy SC turns to evidence about photos of mushrooms found on a tablet police seized from Erin Patterson’s house a week after the lunch. The court previously heard the “last modified” date of the photos were from April and May 2023.
The prosecution has alleged Patterson travelled to Loch and Outtrim in April and May to deliberately source death cap mushrooms.
Mandy – Patterson’s defence lawyer – reminds the jury they have heard evidence that the “last modified” time is not when the photograph was taken.
He says mycologist Dr Thomas May told the jury that the photos appeared to be consistent with death cap mushrooms from what he observed but he made qualifications.
“He said it’s possible they may be other species,” Mandy says.
He reminds the jury May said that identifying a mushroom from a single photo was very difficult.
The jury has heard evidence about how death cap mushrooms can be mistaken for other mushrooms at different stages of their life, Mandy says.
Mandy says the prosecution is suggesting Patterson was planning the murder from 28 April 2023 – 10 days after a sighting of death cap mushrooms in Loch was posted on the iNaturalist website.
He says this is pure speculation.
Updated
The jurors have returned to the courtroom in Morwell.
Mandy is continuing his closing address to the jury.
Updated
The court has adjourned for a lunch break.
The trial will resume from 2.15pm.
Defence says it’s ‘very probable’ Patterson bought dried mushrooms from Asian grocer
Colin Mandy SC turns to the evidence from Erin Patterson that she bought dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer months before the July 2023 lunch.
He says it is “very probable” Patterson bought dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer in April, pointing to evidence that her account of the packaging was consistent with those sold in those stores.
Mandy says it’s unlikely Patterson would buy a dehydrator if she only required it for the beef wellington lunch.
“You can dehydrate things in the oven,” he says.
Mandy says it is “much more likely” to be for a “long-term project or hobby”.
Updated
Defence says Erin Patterson did not tell lunch guests she had a definitive cancer diagnosis
If the jury takes into account the fallibility of memory, the accounts from Erin, Ian and Don prior to his death “aren’t very different”, Mandy says.
He says the prosecution wants to portray that during the trial Patterson lied about what she told her lunch guests.
“We say, well, she told you the truth about that. She was ashamed but she faced up to what she’d done,” he says. “She admitted it to you.”
Mandy says it was easier to “hint at diagnosis and treatment” than tell people you are a binge eater or are considering weight-loss surgery
“Those kinds of things are private and deeply embarrassing,” he says.
She did tell them a lie … but she didn’t say she had a definitive cancer diagnosis.
Mandy asks the jury to consider what the point would be of Patterson telling her guests she had cancer after the lunch.
The only conclusion you could draw … it’s not a good thing … misleading people about cancer. It’s got nothing to do with any intention to kill or to harm them. It can’t possibly have anything to do with that.
No point in telling a story after they’ve eaten the food.
The prosecution has argued Patterson told the lie about cancer because she thought the “lie would die with them”.
Mandy says this is an “illogical and irrational” theory.
Updated
Mandy says Patterson gave evidence she led her lunch guests to believe she may be needing upcoming cancer treatment. Patterson acknowledged she lied to her guests and said they showed a lot of compassion, the court hears.
Patterson said she lied because she was ashamed about her upcoming weight-loss surgery and of not having control over her body and what she ate.
In cross-examination, Patterson rejected the prosecution’s suggestions that she told her lunch guests she had cancer, the court hears.
Ian Wilkinson’s evidence was that after the lunch Patterson told her guests she had cancer and asked for advice about how to tell her children. Wilkinson said Patterson mentioned a “diagnostic test” for cancer.
Mandy says when Ian was cross-examined, it was pointed out to him that in his police statement he said Patterson announced “she had a suspected cancer”. Pressed about this, Ian said he “believed” Patterson was saying she had cancer at the lunch.
Updated
Defence says Erin Patterson’s lie about the lump on her elbow does not mean she is guilty of triple murder
Mandy says his client “often thought there was something wrong with her”.
“Often this worry was without substance,” he says.
He reminds the jury about evidence they have heard that Patterson spoke to a doctor about concerns she had ovarian cancer and researched her symptoms online.
Mandy says Patterson gave evidence she wanted to host the lunch because she became worried there may have been “distance” growing between her and the Patterson family. She said she realised she needed to be “more proactive” about social contact with her in-laws.
Mandy says Patterson said she lied about having a needle biopsy appointment for a lump on her elbow because she didn’t want the care shown by Don and Gail to stop.
“Erin often thought she had issues with her health that ended up going nowhere … that’s not made up, that’s not a lie. It’s there for everyone to see in her medical records and her conversations with people, including Simon,” he says.
She’s not on trial for lying. This is not a court of, as I said to you, of moral judgment.
He says the jury should not leap from the lie about the lump on her elbow to “finding her guilty for triple murder”.
Mandy says the prosecution’s case is that Patterson’s lie about her elbow lump was a ruse to entice her lunch guests to the beef wellington meal.
That must be wrong as a matter of logic … because the only one person she told she wanted to discuss medical issues with was Simon and he wasn’t at the lunch.
Don and Gail and Ian and Heather were not told anything about that. The evidence is they did not know the reason or the purpose of the lunch.
He says if Patterson wanted to mislead her guests she would have mentioned the medical issue before the lunch.
Updated
Defence says there was ‘no venom’ in Erin Patterson’s relationship with Simon
Mandy says despite Erin and Simon Patterson’s disagreement in late 2022 there was “no venom” in the pair’s relationship.
He says his client also had a good relationship with Don and Gail.
Mandy says Don and Gail were happy to go to Erin’s house in June and in July for the fateful meal.
“The fact is, there’s just simply no evidence that contradicts the position we’re putting to you,” he says.
He says Patterson had a history of low self-esteem and binge eating. During evidence, Patterson said she had been planning to have gastric bypass surgery for weight loss at the time of the lunch.
During cross-examination, Patterson told prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC she was also considering liposuction.
He says the Enrich clinic, which Patterson named in her evidence, definitely offered liposuction at that time.
Updated
Defence says Facebook messages ‘a distraction from the real evidence’
Colin Mandy SC says the whole world is now scrutinising these messages, which his client has expressed shame over.
We suggest these messages are a distraction from the real evidence in the case, the evidence that is relevant to these charges.
Mandy says the prosecution is not alleging a motive, yet has dedicated a lot of time in the trial to these Facebook messages.
“Because it was such a polite, kind and good relationship that these messages stand out,” he says.
It’s just an attempt … to undermine the evidence that Erin had a loving and supporting relationship with Don and Gail.
Updated
Erin Patterson’s defence says prosecution’s interpretation of Facebook group chats was ‘completely lacking nuance’
Mandy says there were 600 pages of messages from a Facebook group chat Patterson was in. But he says the prosecution only tendered six pages in the trial.
The court previously was shown messages from the group where Patterson said her in-laws, Don and Gail, were a “lost cause” in December 2022.
Mandy says it was a “private conversation” and an “emotional release”.
The prosecution’s theory about these messages “does not grapple with the nature of human behaviour”, Mandy says.
“It’s completely lacking nuance,” he says.
Mandy says the prosecution is asking the jury to “rely on three days of upset by Erin” and ignore her years-long relationship with Simon and his parents.
He says some of Patterson’s messages are “responsive” to questions by other group members who asked for updates.
Mandy says jurors will understand someone being polite to their grandmother and “swearing like a trooper with your mates”.
“Or maybe the other way round if you’ve got a cool grandmother and really nerdy mates,” he says.
Updated
Erin Patterson’s defence says her disagreement with Simon over child support and school fees a ‘minor thing’
Mandy recalls the evidence about Erin and Simon Patterson’s disagreement about child support payments and school fees in late 2022.
Regarding child support, Mandy says Erin was now eligible for an entitlement she hadn’t received before.
“It wasn’t a change for her,” he says.
Mandy says a “fair reading” of messages from the group chat with Erin, Simon and his parents from December 2022 suggests things became “petty” at this point.
He says the disagreement was a “minor thing”. But he says the correspondence stands out because it is the only disagreement between Erin Patterson and her in-laws in the evidence.
“These people are eternally polite to each other,” Mandy says.
The Pattersons are always polite in their exchanges, so when Erin is being honest about how she is feeling, that might have been a little bit confronting for them. It wasn’t rude. It wasn’t aggressive. She was standing up for herself and being direct.
Mandy says the prosecution argued Patterson lived a “duplicitous” life by portraying one side of herself to Simon and his family and another to her online friends.
“It should be obvious to you … when she’s upset about something, she raises it with the people she’s upset with … she’s not secret,” he says.
She’s not hiding it, she’s not pretending that everything is OK. She’s expressing it.
Mandy says there is no evidence Erin had been complaining about the Pattersons for years.
Updated
Defence says Erin Patterson made ‘first move to apologise’ after argument over late invitation to Gail’s 70th
Mandy takes the jury to evidence of message exchanges in October 2022 when Patterson received a late invitation to Gail’s 70th birthday party.
He reads Erin’s message to Simon in which she apologised for shouting at him.
“She’s making the first move to apologise,” Mandy says.
In Simon’s reply, he also apologised and said he wouldn’t call what either of them did shouting.
Mandy says this is not how a cold-blooded person would behave. He reminds the jury that it was a misunderstanding as Don and Gail had intended to invite Erin.
Updated
Defence says there is ‘not one scrap of evidence’ Erin Patterson saw iNaturalist death cap posts
Mandy says the jury has heard there had only been three reported sightings of death cap mushrooms in the Gippsland region.
The two confirmed sightings were by mycologist Dr Thomas May and retired pharmacist Christine McKenzie in the months prior to the lunch, the court hears.
He says these two sightings relied on people “who were very familiar with death cap mushrooms”.
Mandy says the crown’s case is that Patterson acted on the only two confirmed reported sightings of death cap mushrooms in South Gippsland.
“There’s not one scrap of evidence she actually saw those posts [on iNaturalist],” he says.
Mandy says there is also no evidence that Patterson returned to the iNaturalist website after May 2022.
Updated
Defence says Erin Patterson’s online searches about death cap mushrooms were ‘idle curiosity’
Colin Mandy SC says there is “no way” the prosecution can “rebut” Patterson’s evidence that she had a habit of foraging for mushrooms in the three years prior to the lunch.
He reminds the jury that the onus of proof is on the prosecution.
Touching on the evidence about the online searches for death cap mushrooms, Mandy says there are a number of possibilities.
Mandy says one possibility is that Patterson was not familiar with the citizen science website iNaturalist.
He says the online search records “jump around a bit”.
He says the searches show webpages related to death cap mushrooms were only visited for a few seconds.
“The timing of these records should tell you something very important … this interaction was idle curiosity, just before ordering dinner, three minutes before ordering dinner,” he says.
The interaction with iNaturalist was two minutes at most … it’s not very long.
This was not a person carefully studying this information, doing research about it. This was not a deep and abiding interest in this subject matter. It was passing attention.
Updated
Defence says ‘there is little doubt’ Erin Patterson looked up whether death cap mushrooms grow in Gippsland
Mandy says Erin Patterson’s online friend Jenny Hay testified that his client told their group chat about her love of mushrooms.
He says picking mushrooms was not something Patterson did daily.
“It could only happen in mushroom season … and it only happened a handful of times in each of these seasons,” he says.
It makes perfect sense … in the context of this dawning interest in mushrooms … that she would have become aware of death cap mushrooms.
It seems likely that people picking and eating death cap mushrooms would become aware of them … they are notorious.
People would know about that.
Mandy says the “question occurred to her” about whether death caps grow in Gippsland.
“So on 28 May 2022 there is little doubt it was Erin Patterson looking up that very question on the Cooler Master computer,” he says.
There’s no argument from us [that] it was someone else.
Updated
Erin Patterson’s defence says her interest in mushroom foraging was ‘not fabricated’
Colin Mandy SC turns to talk about mushrooms.
He says shortly after the Covid lockdowns began, Patterson became interested in mushrooms. He says Patterson’s evidence and photos of wild mushrooms found on an SD card seized from Patterson’s house show this.
“It’s not made up. It’s not fabricated,” he says.
He says a lot of people became interested in foraging during Covid because they were only able to go outside for walks.
Mandy says a theme of the prosecution’s questioning of Patterson has been whether other people knew about her interest in foraging.
He says some of these photos from April and May 2020 show Patterson’s children with her in the background while on a walk on the Leongatha rail trail.
“This is evidence and confirmation that Erin Patterson had an interest in mushrooms at exactly the same time [mycologist] Thomas May says this interest in mushrooms was becoming more popular,” he says.
Mandy reminds the jury that Patterson’s son recalled going for a walk with his mother in the Korumburra botanic gardens and her stopping to take a photograph of a mushroom.
Patterson’s daughter told police she had not been foraging with her mother, the court heard previously.
Mandy says it’s possible Patterson’s children could not recall their mother picking mushrooms on walks years later when questioned by police.
“Maybe it wasn’t a big deal,” he says.
Updated
Don and Gail Patterson an important part of Erin’s support network, defence says
Mandy says his client is a loving mother to her children.
Patterson told the jury when Don and Gail visited her and Simon in Western Australia they provided support when the couple’s first child was born, the court hears.
The jury has heard evidence that Patterson wanted to move back to Victoria so the family could be closer to Simon’s parents for support, Mandy says.
He points to Simon’s evidence that Don and Gail were an important part of Patterson’s support network. He points to Simon testifying that Patterson was particularly close to Don as they shared an interest in books and the world.
He says Patterson and Simon separated about seven years before the lunch.
“If there were the occasional disagreements … they were resolved really smoothly and respectfully,” he says.
That’s a significant thing for people who are separated.
It says a lot about the relationship.
He reminds the jury that there were no lawyers involved in Erin and Simon Patterson’s separation in 2015.
Mandy says the jury should remember the pair’s “spat” in December over child support payments was in the context of more than seven years of a relationship post-separation.
Updated
Erin Patterson ‘not on trial for being a liar’, defence says
Mandy says the jury must engage their heads and not their heart to intellectually examine the evidence.
“It doesn’t matter what you would have done in a situation,” he says.
Mandy says it is impossible for jurors to know how they would behave in a situation.
Mandy says Patterson has acknowledged she made lies.
“She’s not on trial for being a liar,” he says.
He says nothing Patterson did afterwards changes what her intention was when she served the beef wellington meal.
Updated
Erin Patterson’s defence says prosecution case based on ‘hindsight reasoning’
Colin Mandy SC says the prosecution has invited the jury to “think about what you would do in the situation if this was really a horrible accident”.
Mandy says the prosecution was inviting the jury to engage in an activity that could be seductive but is flawed because it is based on hindsight.
“What hindsight reasoning does, in a way, is to shift the burden of proof on to the defence,” he says.
“It’s the prosecution’s job to prove what the accused actually did and not to engage in a hypothetical comparison of what you or someone else might do in the same situation.”
Mandy says the prosecution should be relying on the evidence.
He says when you know the outcome of a situation and reflect on it “things might become clear”.
Things seem obvious in retrospect but that’s not the right way of approaching it.
Updated
Jury has entered court
The jurors have entered the court room in Morwell.
Patterson’s defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, is continuing to deliver his closing address to the jury.
Updated
What the jury heard on Tuesday
Here’s a recap of what the jury heard yesterday:
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC told the jury Erin Patterson “targeted her search” for death cap mushrooms to poison the beef wellingtons she served her lunch guests on 29 July 2023.
Patterson cannot be accepted as a truthful and trustworthy witness, Rogers said. In the final moments of her closing address, she said if the jury combines all the evidence in the trial they will be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Patterson deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms and deliberately included them in the beef wellingtons she served her guests.
Patterson’s defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, said the prosecution had a “flawed approach” in analysing the evidence and “discarded inconvenient truths”. He told the jury to consider whether there is a reasonable possibility that death cap mushrooms were put into the beef wellingtons accidentally. He said jurors should also consider whether there is a reasonable possibility that Patterson did not intend to kill or cause serious injury to her guests.
Mandy said his client had no motive and “very good reasons” not to harm her lunch guests. “If you do embark on this plan … you’ll lose the only people in the world who are any support to you and your children, you will lose your children and you will lose everything that’s important to you,” he said.
Mandy said that while Patterson had a right to silence and was under no obligation to testify in the trial, she chose to give evidence in the trial. In doing so, he said, she opened herself up to days of cross-examination by an experienced barrister and the “scrutiny of the whole world”.
Updated
Good morning
Welcome to day 34 of Erin Patterson’s triple murder trial.
Patterson’s defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, will continue delivering his closing address when the trial resumes from 10.30am.
Justice Christopher Beale has told the jury he will begin instructing them on Monday, before their deliberations. He said this “could spill” into next Wednesday. Once this is concluded, the jurors will retire to consider their verdicts.
Patterson, 50, faces three charges of murder and one charge of attempted murder relating to a beef wellington lunch she served at her house in Leongatha, in regional Victoria, on 29 July 2023.
She is accused of murdering her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and her estranged husband’s aunt, Heather Wilkinson. The attempted murder charge relates to Heather’s husband, Ian.
She has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The prosecution alleges Patterson deliberately poisoned her lunch guests with “murderous intent” but her lawyers say the poisoning was a tragic accident.
Updated
