Erin Patterson murder trial: Mushroom cook grilled in Australian court on sixth beef wellington dish
Patterson disputed a suggestion by Rogers that the sixth was for her husband, Simon, if he changed his mind and attended.
'I didn't make that sixth one for Simon,' she said.
'It's just an extra one. Simon wasn't coming.'
Erin Patterson said her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, was not expected at the lunch. Photo / NewsWire
Mandy took Patterson to her Woolworths rewards data, which the barrister said showed the purchase of five twin packs of beef eye fillet steaks.
'I had five twin packs, I put two in the freezer, and I had six to make,' Patterson said.
'So I did that.'
She said she had enough ingredients to prepare a sixth dish, so she did, thinking she could eat it another day.
Simon Patterson's parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and aunt, Heather Wilkinson, died after eating a meal at Erin Patterson's home on July 29, 2023, in the country Victorian town of Leongatha.
Wilkinson's husband, Ian Wilkinson, survived after spending about a month and a half in hospital.
Prosecutors allege Patterson deliberately poisoned the guests with death cap mushrooms, while her defence argues it was a tragic accident.
Jury sent home for the day
Jurors have been sent home for the day after they were told they'd reached the end of the evidence they would hear.
Shortly before 1pm, after Mandy completed his re-examination of Patterson, the jury was told the defence had now closed its case.
'Ladies and gentlemen, that's the completion of the evidence in this case,' Justice Christopher Beale said.
Justice Beale told jurors he was now required to have discussions with the two parties in their absence, 'and they could take a while'.
He sent the jury home for the day, suggesting they might not be required to attend court on Friday.
'If you can just check your phone this evening, we will let you know if you get a long weekend or to come in tomorrow,' Justice Beale said.
Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers and Detective Senior Constable Stephen Eppingstall are involved in the ongoing mushroom trial. Photo / Getty Images
Defence clarifies Patterson's evidence
Mandy took Patterson to evidence she'd given last week that she had a pre-surgery appointment booked at the Enrich Clinic in Melbourne for September 2023.
She told the jury she had decided to get gastric bypass surgery, and this was the medical issue she'd mentioned in messages to her husband before the fatal lunch.
On Tuesday, Rogers produced evidence that the clinic had never offered gastric bypass surgery.
Mandy produced a screenshot of a message on the Enrich Clinic's website saying it would 'no longer' be offering liposuction as of June 2024.
Patterson told the court that she had not had an appointment and believed they'd 'offered a full range of weight-loss surgery'.
'I was obviously mistaken,' she said.
Prosecution asks three final questions
Shortly after 11.30am, Rogers remarked that the jury would be pleased that she had three final questions for Patterson after a week of cross-examination.
Rogers suggested that Patterson deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms, deliberately included them in the beef wellington and did so intending to kill her four guests.
Patterson responded 'disagree' three times to each of the propositions.
'Your Honour, I have no further questions,' Rogers said.
Mandy rose to his feet, telling the court that he had about 30 minutes of re-examination for Patterson before asking for a half-hour break.
The jury then took a mid-morning break.
Erin Patterson's defence team worked to clarify her evidence about booking in at a clinic. Photo / Getty Images
Erin disputes children's account of leftovers
In her evidence, Patterson said she scraped off the mushrooms and pastry of the lunch leftovers for her son and daughter and served herself a bowl of cereal because she wasn't feeling well.
In her children's evidence, both said Patterson had plated herself up some leftovers too.
Her daughter said Patterson 'wasn't very hungry' and her son ate his portion and the remainder of his mother's.
Asked if her son and daughter were 'wrong about what you prepared yourself for dinner that night', Patterson agreed.
Alleged poisoner grilled on bush poo claim
Rogers took Patterson to evidence she gave last week about stopping to defacate on the side of the road, because of diarrhoea, while driving her son to a flying lesson in Tyabb.
Earlier in the trial, the jury was told Patterson drove her two children an hour and a half to Tyabb for the lesson on the afternoon of July 30, 2023, but it was cancelled shortly before they arrived and she turned around.
Patterson claimed she was suffering nausea and regular diarrhoea that day and stopped 30 minutes into the trip.
Rogers took Patterson to her son's evidence, where he said that at no stage did his mother stop to use the toilet.
'I suggest he did not recall it because it did not happen?' Rogers asked.
'Disagree,' Patterson replied.
'This is another lie you told to explain how you managed the trip to Tyabb?' the prosecutor continued.
'Disagree,' Patterson said.
Mushroom cook denies 'wild goose chase' claim
Facing questions from Rogers on Wednesday, Patterson denied she led health authorities on a 'wild goose chase' as they probed the mushroom poisoning of her four lunch guests.
Giving evidence last week, Patterson maintained that she used dried mushrooms in the deadly lunch that she had bought from an Asian grocer in Melbourne's east in about April 2023.
She told the court she initially planned to use them in a pasta dish but decided they would be too overpowering and stored them in a Tupperware container in her pantry.
She said she now believed she may have added foraged wild mushrooms to that container.
Facing questions from Rogers on Wednesday, Patterson was asked if she was worried about them being too strong for the beef wellington.
'No, I didn't think that. I thought it was the perfect dish for them,' she responded.
Rogers went on to probe the exchange Patterson had with Department of Health officer Sally Ann Atkinson about the Asian grocer.
Atkinson gave evidence that she communicated with Patterson over several days in earlier August amid a public health probe into the poisoning.
Text messages and calls between the pair showed Atkinson attempting to narrow down the location of the store.
Rogers suggested Patterson was 'very familiar' with the area, owning a home in Mt Waverley and having previously worked for the Monash City Council.
Patterson disputed this but did say she was familiar with the adjoining areas of Glen Waverley, Oakleigh and Clayton.
Rogers suggested Patterson was 'deliberately vague' about the location of the Asian grocer because it was a lie.
'Incorrect,' Patterson responded.
'I was doing my best to remember when it happened, but I think I was clear at all times that I didn't have a memory of the actual purchase.'
The trial, now in its seventh week, continues.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Melbourne teacher banned for 3 years over ex-student relationship
A Victorian teacher who began a sexual relationship with an ex-student within two years of them graduating has been suspended from the profession for three years. Eleanor Yorke was sacked from Carey Grammar in Melbourne after it was discovered she had sent 35,000 messages to a then-student before later having
1News
2 days ago
- 1News
Mushroom trial: Motive and murder - what the jury must decide
With all evidence now complete, closing arguments are underway in one of the most high-profile murder trials in Australia. But jurors in Victoria aren't being asked to find a motive. They're being asked to decide whether Erin Patterson is guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. Experts agree the legal threshold is one of the most misunderstood elements of criminal trials - so what does that actually mean? Australia Correspondent Aziz Al Sa'afin explains. What's the job of the jury? To weigh the evidence presented and decide whether guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt Under Victorian law, jurors must not speculate, assume or 'fill in gaps' - they rely only on what was presented in court What does 'beyond reasonable doubt' actually mean? ADVERTISEMENT Speaking to 1News, Criminal barrister Rishi Nathwani KC explained it like this: 'It doesn't mean beyond any doubt at all - just beyond a reasonable one. If the jury finds there is a real possibility the accused is innocent, they must acquit.' Nathwani said while the phrase remains in use in Victoria, in other jurisdictions it's sometimes simplified as: 'Are you sure?' If jurors are not sure, based on the evidence presented in court, then the verdict must be not guilty. Why is this important in the Patterson case? The Crown has alleged Erin Patterson deliberately served a meal containing death cap mushrooms that killed three of her relatives and left a fourth man fighting for life. But prosecutors have explicitly told jurors not to focus on motive. 'You don't need to find a motive to find someone guilty of murder,' the prosecution has said. Instead, they argue that Patterson's behaviour - including her shifting explanations, deleted data and acquisition of a food dehydrator point to intent. ADVERTISEMENT Defence: Beware the danger of hindsight In closing arguments, Patterson's barrister Colin Mandy SC warned the jury not to judge her through the lens of hindsight. 'This trial isn't about what might have happened. It's about what the evidence shows.' He said much of the Crown's argument is based on 'speculation' and assumptions that don't amount to proof. So what is the jury considering? Under Victorian law, jurors must decide whether Erin Patterson: Intended to kill or cause serious injury to her lunch guests And whether the prosecution has proven this beyond reasonable doubt ADVERTISEMENT That's it. Even without a clear motive, even with odd behaviour - Nathwani said if there's a reasonable explanation that fits the evidence, Patterson must be acquitted. What has the prosecution said? Over the course of the trial, the Crown argued: Patterson lied about where the mushrooms came from She deliberately misled health officials and police Her phone was factory reset to hide evidence She visited areas where wild death caps were known to grow The prosecution also suggested the sixth beef Wellington - prepared for her estranged husband - was kept separate and potentially safe, though he did not attend the lunch. Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers and Erin Patterson. Montage by Crystal Choi. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT What has the defence said? The defence has said: Patterson panicked and lied, but that doesn't mean she's guilty She had no motive to harm her family Scientific and forensic evidence is inconclusive Death cap residue in the dehydrator does not prove intent or timing They also say surviving guest Ian Wilkinson - who testified the accused used different coloured plates - was 'honestly mistaken'. They raised the possibility a third, unknown mushroom species may have been present in the leftovers, citing expert testimony from a virologist. What happens if the jury can't agree? In Victoria, murder charges require a unanimous verdict. Justice Beale will try to avoid a hung jury by directing the jury to continue deliberating and try to reach agreement. But it is possible it could result in a mistrial if all options have been "exhausted". ADVERTISEMENT As Nathwani explained: 'The judge would, if [the jury] made it aware they were struggling to reach a unanimous verdict, direct them... There's a direction he can give of law, which says, you know, you've got to listen to each other... But if they can't, then it's a retrial, and they do it all again in many months' time.' Recap: What's happened so far in the trial? Week 1–2: Opening arguments and early witnesses, including police and hospital staff. Week 3: Toxicology and forensic experts testified on the symptoms of death cap poisoning. Week 4: Phone and tech evidence, including the factory reset, was presented. Week 5: Botanical and mushroom experts, including Dr Tom May, confirmed death cap DNA in cooking equipment. Week 6: Testimony from Patterson's children and others about her behaviour. ADVERTISEMENT Week 7: Erin Patterson testified across eight days. She denied intent and maintained it was a tragic accident. Week 8: Closing arguments. Prosecution accused her of inventing key parts of her story. Defence said speculation and hindsight are not proof. What next? Judge Christopher Beale is expected to give final directions to the jury next week. Deliberations could begin by the end of June.
1News
2 days ago
- 1News
Puzzles and jumps: End game in Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial
Erin Patterson is innocent of triple murder and jurors should not force "puzzle pieces" of evidence together just to find her guilty, her barrister says. Colin Mandy SC reminded the Victorian Supreme Court jury that prosecutors had to prove the mushroom cook's guilt as he finished his closing address on Thursday. "The prosecution can't get over that high bar of beyond reasonable doubt," Mandy said in his last remarks in the marathon trial in regional Victoria. "When you consider the actual evidence and consider it properly... your verdicts on these charges should be not guilty." Prosecutors allege Patterson, 50, intentionally poisoned her former in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, Gail's sister Heather and Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson with meals laced with death cap mushrooms. ADVERTISEMENT Don, Gail and Heather died after consuming the beef Wellington lunch on July 29, 2023, served by Patterson at her home in regional Victoria, while Ian survived. Mandy told jurors Patterson did not have a motive to kill her lunch guests and prosecutors had been selective with evidence to try to fit their story. He referred to the jigsaw-puzzle analogy used by crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC, who suggested the individual pieces of evidence could be put together to find Patterson guilty. Mandy cautioned against that approach. "You can't force puzzle pieces together — when puzzle pieces don't fit naturally, you know you have the wrong piece in the wrong spot," he said. "But prosecutors can... force the evidence to fit their theory." Mandy argued a more appropriate analogy was high jump, adding prosecutors needed to "jump over the high bar" of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Patterson was guilty. ADVERTISEMENT "Erin doesn't have to jump any bar at all," he said. The barrister urged jurors to find that standard had not been met, saying if they believed it was merely possible Patterson intentionally poisoned the beef Wellingtons to kill her guests they should find her not guilty. If the jurors believed there was a reasonable possibility it was all an accident, Mandy said they would also have to find her not guilty. Patterson needed to be judged on her intention at the time of the meal, not her actions and lies afterwards, he said. The defence barrister referred to her false claims of having a cancerous lump on her elbow, as well as lies about having and discarding a dehydrator. "She did those things because she panicked when confronted by the terrible realisation that her actions had caused the illnesses of the people that she loved," he said. Mandy also criticised elements of the prosecution case. ADVERTISEMENT He maintained Patterson was unwell after the lunch despite allegations she was faking an illness to try to divert blame. The barrister pointed to her hospital blood test results which showed she had low potassium, elevated haemoglobin and elevated fibrinogen. Intensive care specialist Andrew Bersten's evidence was those results were consistent with stress in the body relating to a diarrhoeal illness, the court heard. Mandy rejected the prosecutor's suggestion Patterson had those levels because of psychological stress. He also claimed prosecutors inaccurately portrayed phone-tower data from when Patterson discharged herself from Leongatha Hospital. She left the emergency department shortly after 8am on July 31, two days after the lunch, and did not return to the hospital for more than an hour. Prosecutors alleged her phone connected to the Outtrim base station in that time period, which was consistent with Patterson driving along the Bass Highway. ADVERTISEMENT That indicated she did not go home after leaving the hospital, as she had claimed, the crown said. Mandy urged the jury to reject that suggesting, saying the evidence showed Patterson's phone connected to the Outtrim base station for less than three minutes. The jury was sent home after he finished his closing address. They will return to court on Tuesday to hear Justice Christopher Beale's final directions before beginning deliberations.
