What the jury heard on day 35
Here’s a recap of what the jury heard today:
Patterson’s defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, outlined the prosecution’s top four “convoluted” and “absurd” propositions. Mandy said these were Patterson committing murder without a motive, lying about cancer to entice her lunch guests over, expecting her lunch guests to take her medical issues claim to their graves and thinking she could pass off the lethal meal as a “strange case of gastro”.
Patterson’s estranged husband, Simon, accusing her of using a dehydrator to poison his parents on 1 August 2023 – three days after the lunch – was a “turning point” for the accused, Mandy said. He said this was when his client began to panic and lie.
Mandy refuted the prosecution’s phone argument. He said Patterson would have either disposed of or reset her original mobile – Phone A – if she had planned the “cold, calculated murders” claimed by the prosecution, but instead she continued using it after the lunch.
Mandy pointed to Patterson’s medical tests results from two days after the lunch as evidence she became unwell from the beef wellington meal. He pointed to her low potassium, elevated hemoglobin level and elevated fibrinogen, which he said did not rely on self-reports.
Justice Christopher Beale told the jury he would begin instructing them on Tuesday, before they begin their deliberations.
Updated
Trial to resume on Tuesday
Justice Christopher Beale tells the jury it’s “more important than ever” they have a good weekend.
He says he wants them to return to court next week feeling “refreshed”. Beale will begin instructing the jurors on Tuesday, before they begin deliberating. He has indicated it could take two days for him to deliver his charge to the jury.
The trial will resume from 10.30am on Tuesday.
Updated
Defence says prosecution cannot clear 'high bar' of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Mandy asks the jury to consider what is more likely - that Patterson wanted to reconnect with her in-laws or she wanted to kill everyone.
He says a jury cannot conclude “she’s probably guilty.”
If jurors think there is a reasonable possibility that this is an accident they must acquit, Mandy says.
“If you think maybe she deliberately poisoned the meal, you must find her not guilty,” he says.
“If you think that it’s likely that she deliberately poisoned the meal, you must find her not guilty.”
He says the prosecution cannot clear the “high bar” of beyond reasonable doubt when jurors consider all the evidence in the case.
Mandy concludes his closing address.
'The standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt'
Mandy refers to the case as a jigsaw puzzle and says you cannot force pieces together.
He says the prosecution has tried to “force evidence” to fit their case.
He says the jurors cannot fill in the gaps in the puzzle with “speculation, guesswork and theories”.
“You only act on the evidence because you’re judges,” he says.
“The standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
The jurors must consider whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence exists and not how they “wished” it, Mandy says.
Mandy says the prosecution’s case is flawed due to relying on misleading impressions of evidence, using hindsight to reconstruct evidence, and working backwards without expert evidence to “manufacture a picture”.
“That’s what’s happened here. They started at the end and worked backwards,” he says.
Defence disputes four key prosecution propositions
Mandy tells the jury about the “top four” “convoluted” and “absurd” propositions by the prosecution that the defence have refuted:
1. That Patterson would murder the lunch guests without any motive
2. That she used the cancer lie to entice her lunch guests to her home
3. The “absurd” suggestion she believed her lunch guests would take her claim about medical issues to their graves
4. The “illogical” proposition that Patterson thought she could pass off the event of three out of four of her lunch guests dying as a “strange case of gastro”
Updated
Patterson chose to subject herself to 'incredible amount of scrutiny' by giving evidence, defence says
Mandy reminds the jury his client was not obliged to testify in her trial.
He says the way she answered questions was “careful, even pedantic”.
Mandy says Patterson subjected herself to an “incredible amount of scrutiny” when she chose to give evidence.
He says she was not trying to “charm or persuade” the jury but just to answer questions truthfully.
“Even when the truth was deeply embarrassing or involved admitting she told lies …. What more she could do? She exposed herself and her account to close examination,” he says.
Mandy says Patterson’s evidence in the witness box remained consistent.
He says if the jury finds Patterson’s evidence true they must acquit her of all the charges.
He says if they reject Patterson’s testimony they still need to consider if the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt based on their evidence.
Updated
Sorell said Patterson’s phone records indicated a possible visit to Loch and Outtrim but could not exclude other possibilities.
“Even if you thought the records did suggest that Erin’s phone was in the Loch area, for instance … there’s no evidence she was there to collect death cap mushrooms.”
“It’s not for us to prove she went there for some other reason. That’s a reversal of the onus of proof.”
Mandy says there could be a number of reasons someone would be in a neighbouring town but not remember why they travelled there.
No evidence Patterson saw death cap mushroom posts on iNaturalist, defence says
Jurors have returned to the court room in Morwell.
Mandy says the jury must cautiously approach the evidence of telecommunications expert Dr Matthew Sorell.
“You understand Dr Sorell’s opinions are heavily qualified,” he says.
“The complexity of that evidence is skipped over, in our submission, by the prosecution.”
Mandy says the crown tried to rely on Sorrell’s evidence about a possible opportunity to visit Loch and Outtrim, where death cap mushrooms were reported on the citizen science website iNaturalist in the months before the lunch.
Mandy reminds the jury there is no evidence that Patterson saw the Loch and Outtrim death cap mushroom posts on iNaturalist.
Updated
Court adjourns for break
The court has adjourned for a lunch break.
Mandy will continue delivering his closing address from 2.15pm.
Updated
What Erin Patterson did with her mobile phones
Mandy turns to the prosecution’s argument that Patterson handed police a dummy phone – Phone B – while hiding her usual phone.
He says Patterson would have either disposed of or reset her original mobile – Phone A – if she had planned the “cold, calculated murders” claimed by the prosecution, but instead she continued using it after the lunch.
Mandy says the “stupid thing” his client did was multiple factory resets of Phone B, which he argues is consistent with someone who had panicked.
Mandy says the police did not seize all devices from Patterson’s Leongatha house in the August search that they later retrieved at a search in November.
He says Patterson had not concealed these devices.
Updated
Dehydrator conversation a 'turning point', Patterson's defence says
Mandy says a conversation between Patterson and her estranged husband, Simon, on 1 August 2023 while at Monash hospital was a “turning point” when her dehydrator was raised.
Patterson testified that Simon asked her if she had used a dehydrator to poison his parents. Simon denied asking this.
Mandy says:
“That’s when the wheels started turning … the possibilities that foraged mushrooms went into the meal.”
Mandy says the “meal was clearly a suspect” and child protection was involved. He says the jurors know that his client’s life revolves around her children.
“She starts panicking and she starts lying at this point.”
Mandy says if his client had come forward with her realisation at this point it “would make no difference at all”.
Mandy says from this moment Patterson began to “conceal that foraged mushrooms went into the meal”.
“She feared if that was found out, she would be held responsible,” he says.
None of what she did after the lunch “could change what her intention was at the time of the lunch”, Mandy says.
Updated
Mandy says one of the small number of Asian grocers visited by Troy Schonknecht, a Monash city council worker, matched the packaging that Patterson described.
“A very specific memory … one you could readily accept is true,” he says.
The store-bought dried mushrooms
Mandy turns to the evidence about Patterson saying she bought dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer in the months before the beef wellington lunch.
He says:
“She was never saying to anyone she was certain which suburb the shop was in.”
Mandy says the prosecution argued Patterson did not tell health officials what the dried mushroom packaging looked like until later on. But he says the four medical witnesses who first spoke to her about the Asian grocer did not ask her this. He says they asked if she still had the packaging.
“It’s an example of answering the question you’re being asked,” he says.
“You need to think about the question [Patterson was] being asked to assess the answer in light of it.”
Mandy says department of health official Sally Ann Atkinson was the first person who asked Patterson what the packing looked like and “Erin answered it”.
Evidence shows Patterson was unwell after lunch, defence says
Mandy turns to the evidence about whether his client was unwell after the beef wellington lunch.
He says his client’s diarrhoea had not subsided without medical intervention when she attended hospital two days after the lunch.
He points to three test results which showed Patterson was unwell which do not rely on her self-reports:
1. Low potassium
2. Elevated hemoglobin level
3. Elevated fibrinogen
Mandy reminds the jury of evidence from Prof Andrew Burston, who reviewed Patterson’s medical records but did not assess her. He said Patterson’s medical results from 31 July 2023 showed she presented with a “mild level of dehydration consistent with a diarrhoeal illness”.
“The evidence supports Erin Patterson becoming ill from the lunch,” Mandy says.
Updated
Patterson children’s consumption of leftover meat
Mandy says the jury have not heard any expert evidence about whether Patterson’s children would become ill from eating the leftover beef wellington meat with the mushrooms scraped off.
He says the jury cannot rule out other possibilities such as the death cap mushroom toxins not being absorbed into the meat.
Mandy points to evidence about some samples of the leftovers being negative for these toxins while others were positive.
“Does this not show that the distribution of amatoxins is very inconsistent with those samples?”
Defence turns to argument about children being tested
Mandy turns to the prosecution’s argument about Patterson’s reluctance to have her children medically tested.
He says the prosecution argues this is because she knew they had not eaten the poisoned beef wellington leftovers.
Mandy says Patterson arranged for her children to be tested when the issue was first raised with Dr Veronica Foote when Patterson returned to Leongatha hospital.
“Once Erin understood the concerns, she made those arrangements,” he says.
Nurse Kylie Ashton said the children consuming leftovers was first raised during Patterson’s initial presentation at hospital and not later with Foote. Mandy previously said this testimony was not consistent with the evidence of other medical witnesses.
Updated
Mandy turns to the prosecution’s argument that his client avoided medical treatment because she knew she did not have death cap mushroom poisoning.
Mandy says evidence that Patterson was initially reluctant to receive treatment is contradictory to a person faking an illness.
“If you’re pretending to be sick, you’re going to be saying to the medical staff: ‘hook me up, pump me full of drugs …’”
Updated
Mandy says the prosecution argued Patterson’s phone records showed she did not simply go home and then return to the hospital after she discharged herself.
The prosecution said the records were consistent with Paterson travelling south-west of Leongatha.
Mandy says the location timeline shows the connections to Outtrim on that occasion were for “less than three minutes”.
Telecommunications expert Dr Matthew Sorell provided alternative possibilities which the prosecution ignored, Mandy says.
He points to Sorell saying one explanation was that the phone was pinging another base station as they moved from the front to the back of their house.
Updated
Defence turns to why Patterson discharged herself from hospital
Mandy turns to the evidence about Patterson discharging herself from Leongtha hospital against medical advice two days after the lunch.
Mandy says his client testified that she arrived at the hospital thinking she would just be admitted to get some fluids for gastroenteritis.
“She was not prepared for what she walked into … Where she was told she’d be admitted and transferred to a different hospital in Melbourne,” he says.
“She was not refusing treatment. She was saying there were things she needed to do before she was admitted and transferred.
“She was struggling to process what she was being told.”
Mandy says Patterson’s mind turned to the “practical considerations”.
Patterson told the jury she left the hospital to pack her daughter’s ballet bag and attend to her pets.
Coffee or tea and a trip to Tyabb
Mandy says Patterson’s son told police he saw his mother drinking a coffee the morning after the lunch. Patterson, who said she had diarrhoea at this point, said she was drinking herbal tea.
He rhetorically asks if Patterson son was “watching his mother like a hawk all morning?”
Mandy says Patterson’s son was not focused on his mother. He accuses the prosecution of ignoring other evidence from Patterson’s son that his mother “didn’t sound like her happy self” that morning.
Mandy turns to the evidence about Patterson driving her son to a flying lesson in Tyabb, which was later cancelled, the day after the lunch.
“The crown theory, of course, is that she is faking being ill,” Mandy says.
“Why would she go on this journey to Tyabb if she was faking being unwell?”
Patterson told the jury that on the journey to Tyabb she pulled over on the highway and went to the toilet in a bush. Patterson’s son told police he did not remember his mother going to the toilet, or any stops on the journey.
This is despite the jury seeing CCTV footage of Patterson stopping at a service station en route to Tyabb.
Mandy says Patterson’s son did not recall the toilet stop or service station stop.
Updated
Mandy touches on his address yesterday where he said Patterson may have become unwell earlier than her lunch guests because she was tasting the mushroom duxelles for the beef wellington while she was cooking it.
Patterson testified that she added dried mushrooms to the dish after she tasted it and noticed it was bland. Patterson told the trial it was possible she had added foraged mushrooms to a Tupperware container with store-bought dried mushrooms that she used in the dish.
Mandy acknowledges there is no evidence that Patterson tasted the dish after adding the dried mushrooms.
He tells the jury: “But using your common sense you might expect that that’s exactly what’s happened.”
Updated
'Erin Patterson was not an atheist,' defence says
Mandy turns to the evidence of one of Patterson’s online friends, Christine Hunt.
He says Hunt was not part of the smaller Facebook group chat where Patterson messaged friends about her in-laws, Don and Gail.
Mandy says Hunt was asked about Patterson’s religious views while those in the smaller group chat were not. He says this is an example of the prosecution picking and choosing evidence that suits them and ignoring others.
Hunt previously testified that Patterson told a wider Facebook group she was an atheist.
“Erin Patterson was not an atheist,” Mandy says.
Updated
Judge outlines trial timeline
The jurors have entered the court room in Morwell.
Justice Christopher Beale tells the jury he will begin instructing them on Tuesday, before they begin their deliberations. He says his instructions, called the judge’s charge, will take two days.
“I’m working hard to try and compress it,” he says.
Beale says Patterson’s defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, will conclude his closing address today.
What the jury heard on Wednesday
Here’s what the jury heard yesterday:
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 was not a person “carefully studying this information”.
Updated
Welcome to day 35 of Erin Patterson’s triple murder trial.
Patterson’s defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, will continue delivering his closing address to the jury 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 jury will retire to consider its verdict.
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.
