Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
World
Maroosha Muzaffar

Erin Patterson denies all charges as triple murder trial testimony concludes

File. Erin Patterson is accused of serving her former husband's family poisonous mushrooms - (AP)

Erin Patterson has concluded her testimony in the Supreme Court of Victoria, marking the end of eight days in the witness box in her high-profile triple murder trial.

Ms Patterson, 50, faces three charges of murder and one of attempted murder for allegedly serving death cap mushrooms in a beef wellington meal to her estranged husband’s relatives at her home in Leongatha, Victoria, on 29 July 2023.

Her former husband’s parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and his aunt, Heather Wilkinson, took seriously ill after eating the lunch and died a few days later. Ms Wilkinson’s husband, Ian, was hospitalised but survived.

Ms Patterson has pleaded not guilty to the charges, maintaining the deaths were accidental.

In the final moments of her cross-examination, chief prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC put three key accusations to Ms Patterson: that she deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms, knowingly included them in the beef wellington and intended to kill her guests.

To all three, Ms Patterson responded: “Disagree.”

Ms Patterson claimed she dehydrated dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer before using them in the beef wellington. However, she admitted this detail wasn’t mentioned earlier, prompting the prosecution to accuse her of making it up to obscure the origin of the mushrooms.

Ms Patterson denied the accusation, insisting her explanation was truthful.

“I suggest this is another lie you made up on the spot,” the prosecutor Rogers said, accusing Ms Patterson of trying to hedge her bets by implying there could be several possible sources for the death cap mushrooms.

“Incorrect,” the accused responded.

The prosecutor also implied that Ms Patterson might have lied about taking diarrhoea medication after the lunch, noting that she had previously claimed one reason for going to hospital was her belief they would provide a stronger treatment.

Ms Patterson acknowledged that she hadn't informed hospital staff about taking the medication but insisted it was because no one asked.

“If you were looking for something stronger, you would’ve told medical staff you had already taken Imodium and it didn't work,” Ms Rogers said.

“I don’t agree,” Ms Patterson responded.

A memorial plaque marks the grave site for Don and Gail Patterson at the Korumburra General Cemetery (Getty)

The prosecution also alleged that Ms Patterson had fabricated a story about stopping by the roadside to relieve herself while driving her son to a flying lesson. Her son had earlier testified this did not happen, but Ms Patterson stood by her version.

“I suggest he did not recall you stopping by the bushes on the side of the road because it did not happen,” Ms Rogers said. “I suggest this is another lie you told the jury about how you managed the trip to Tyabb.”

“Disagree,” Ms Patterson said.

Ms Patterson also told the court she ate only cereal the night after the fatal lunch and served her children leftover beef wellington with the mushrooms removed.

Both children, however, told police she ate the same meal they did. Ms Patterson rejected their accounts, saying they were mistaken.

Ms Rogers referred Ms Patterson to transcripts of her children's police interviews where they were questioned about what she ate for dinner on 30 July.

“Do you say [your daughter] is wrong about what you prepared yourself for dinner on the Sunday night?”

“She is,” Ms Patterson responded.

Later, Ms Rogers asked: “Do you say that [your son] is incorrect about what you prepared for dinner on the Sunday night?”

“Yes, he is,” Ms Patterson answered.

Ms Patterson also denied hiding one of her phones from police, claiming she switched to another phone because the first wasn’t working well. However, the prosecution noted that the first phone was still in use shortly after the lunch.

Ms Patterson said she reset the new phone before handing it to police.

When accused of lying about the first phone’s condition, she disagreed.

“I suggest to you that there was nothing wrong with phone A and this is another lie,” Ms Rogers said.

“Disagree,” Patterson responded.

The trial continues.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.