Erin Patterson gives evidence in mushroom murder trial

Accused triple mushroom murderer Erin Patterson has told an Australian court how she tweaked a beef wellington recipe for what turned out to be a deadly meal, adding dried mushrooms because it tasted a little bland. She has conceded some of them may have been foraged but has pleaded not guilty to killing her estranged inlaws Don and Gail Patterson with a meal laced with death cap mushrooms. A third guest, Heather Wilkinson also died after eating the beef wellington. Her husband, became seriously ill but survived. The trial is happening in Morwell in Victoria's Gippsland region. South Gippsland Sentinel-Times journalist Michael Giles has followed the trial and spoke to Lisa Owen.
To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following:
See terms of use.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

RNZ News

12 hours ago

• RNZ News

Khandallah murder trial: Julia DeLuney booked tickets to ballet before attacking mother, Crown alleges

Julia DeLuney at Wellington High Court. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii A Crown prosecutor has told a court Wellington woman Julia DeLuney violently attacked her mother, leaving her dead or dying, in January last year. A post-mortem found Khandallah resident Helen Gregory, aged 79, died from complications of blunt force trauma, with 12 lacerations to her head and three skull fractures. Her daughter DeLuney is charged with murder, to which she has pleaded not guilty, with her trial opening Monday morning in the High Court in Wellington. Crown prosecutor Nicole Jamieson told the court that on the evening of 24 January, DeLuney visited her mother to book tickets to the ballet. But sometime between 8.16pm - when DeLuney's email address received confirmation of the ticket purchase - and 9.45pm when she left the address, the Crown said she violently attacked her mother and then staged the scene to make it look like she had suffered a fall. But DeLuney's defence lawyers said the police investigation had suffered from tunnel vision, and failed to consider that someone else killed Gregory. Jamieson laid out the case for the jurors. Allegedly, DeLuney organised a visit with her mother via email, with the purpose of booking tickets to the ballet. She arrived a little after 6pm. Jamieson said phone records showed DeLuney messaged her husband on Facebook around 7.20pm, to say they were looking through her mother's clothes, and sent a photo of them together in the wardrobe. DeLuney's email account received a Ticketmaster confirmation of purchase for tickets to the ballet, and then at 8.16pm, DeLuney messaged her husband to say they were having dinner. She left at 9.45pm. It is in this window that the Crown alleged DeLuney attacked her mother, leaving her fatally injured. She said it was the Crown's understanding that DeLuney was experiencing financial difficulty, involved in trading cryptocurrency, and had recently received $15,000 from her mother to invest, which the Crown said it appeared she used instead to pay off her own debt. Jamieson said later evidence would show the possibility that Gregory was attacked using a vase which normally stood on the bedside table. DeLuney then drove home, stopped at a Mobil station, and then picked up her husband before returning to the Baroda St address. Her husband began performing CPR and an ambulance was called, but first responders were not successful, and Gregory was pronounced dead at 11.45pm. Jamieson said the case would be "an issue of identity". "Who killed Ms Gregory? And that is because Ms DeLuney denies it was her." She said in DeLuney's version of events, her mother went to put toilet roll in the attic and fell. At that stage, her injuries were not "significant". DeLuney put her in a bedroom and left her to go and pick up her husband to help, and when they returned, they found blood and significant injuries. According to Jamieson: "The Crown says that what Ms DeLuney told the police is not the truth." Defence lawyer Quentin Duff told the jury the police investigation had failed to consider that someone else might have killed Gregory. He said from the very beginning, the "rot of tunnel vision" had excluded DeLuney's "honest, if not perfect explanation" of the evening, and the case had "developed a contagious case of tunnel vision", which excluded the most obvious explanation - that someone else had killed her. He said later evidence would show Gregory's phone ascending one floor into the attic at 9.30pm. He asserted that between 9.30pm and 10pm, a neighbour told police someone had knocked on their door, and when they went to investigate, nobody was there, introducing the possibility of a third person to the evening. The Crown began calling witnesses on Monday afternoon. The trial is expected to go for up to five weeks, and there are set to be more than 80 witnesses called in total.

1News

4 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.

RNZ News

4 days ago

• RNZ News

Six months out from social media ban, age-checking tech mistakes kids for 37-year-olds

Face-scanning technology tests could only guess age within an 18-month range in 85 percent of cases. Photo: Supplied/ABC Children as young as 15 were repeatedly misidentified as being in their 20s and 30s during Government tests of age-checking tools, sowing new doubts over whether the teen social media ban is viable. ABC News can reveal that face-scanning technology tested on school students this year could only guess their age within an 18-month range in 85 percent of cases. "It's definitely a problem," said Andrew Hammond, general manager of software consultancy firm KJR, which was tasked with running the trial. "So far, it's not perfect and it's not getting every child, but does that mean it's no good at all?" The full results of the age assurance technology trial were not expected to be released until later this year, but preliminary data had experts worried. "I don't think the ban is viable," said RMIT University information services professor Lisa Given, who had closely analysed the Government's policy. "Parents are definitely headed for a rude shock, in terms of what this legislation will actually deliver to them." Under the social media ban, more than 20 million Australians will be required to demonstrate they are 16 or older to log in to most major social media platforms. The ban is due to take effect in December, but the Government has yet to decide how it will be implemented, amid ongoing questions over whether age-checking technology is up to the job. The Government's technology trial, which has been running for eight months, was meant to provide some answers, but Professor Given said the public may be disappointed. "The accuracy level at 85 [percent] is actually quite low and an 18-month range is significant, when you're trying to identify a very particular age grouping," she said. "We are going to see a messy situation emerging immediately, where people will have what they call false positives, false negatives." Some students at Canberra's John Paul College, who previewed the technology as part of the Government's trial, were surprised, when their results were up to decades off the mark. Sixteen-year-old Andy was misidentified as 19, 37, 26, and 23 years old by various face-scanning tools he used. "I don't think the technology is ready yet to become a full-fledged primary defence system," he said. "It's pretty inconsistent." Seventeen-year-old Beth was given results ranging from 14-32. "I usually get told by other people that I don't look 17, I look older, so when it says 14, I thought… that's interesting." Her results from the other end of the spectrum were unwelcome for different reasons. "It's a bit insulting, because that's how old my aunty is," she said. "I don't want to look 32 just yet." Seventeen-year-old Nomi was especially concerned, when one tool mistook her for a 13-year-old. "I'm almost 18," she said. "If I try to sign up to an app and it tells me 'you're not meeting an age requirement', even though I am, that would be a problem for me." While the face-scanning results from the trial may not seem promising, Hammond said he was confident the ban would still work, because it did not rely exclusively on that tech. "If the solution to implementing the legislation was just facial age estimation, I'd say, 'Yep, it's probably not good enough'," he said. "However, it's just one of the tools in the toolkit that could be used." Age-verification providers are not discouraged by the early results either, arguing that other tech was always going to be necessary as a complement to get precise results. "You would never rely on age estimation for people who are literally at the age of 16," said Iain Corby from the Age Verification Providers Association, the industry body for age-check companies. "It was never going to be good enough for that," he said. One tool mistook Beth, 17, as being 32 years old. Photo: ABC News Corby said the early data reported by ABC News, showing an accuracy rate within 18 months for only 85 percent of students, is roughly what he expected. "I think even the best-in-class achieves about a year and a month, on average, above or below your real age." Among the methods tested were other age-estimation techniques that rely on biological traits, such as voice and hand movements, to guess the age of a user, but those methods struggled with the same accuracy issues and fewer companies offered the service. Another avenue was guessing a person's age based on their online activity, but that was also imprecise. Other tools offer a higher degree of certainty by inferring or even verifying a user's age, using data provided by third parties, such as banks, schools or healthcare providers. The strongest proof is a overnment-issued ID, such as a passport or a driver's license, but the legislation prevented social media companies from insisting on it. A last-minute amendment to the Bill, when it was passed back in November, meant platforms would be forced to offer users alternative methods to prove their age. That rule meant many Australians who could not easily provide those more reliable proofs might be forced to rely on less accurate methods, such as face scanning, if they wanted to use social media. "We do know, generally, that young people are going to be less likely to have a Government-issued ID that would satisfy some form of age verification," Given said. If facial scanning was on offer, under-16s who wanted to dodge the ban might be tempted to choose it anyway, in the hope they could fool it. "They might put glasses on, they might put make-up on, different hairstyle, different lighting, just to see if the system is actually able to accurately see that they're underage or over 16," Given said. The Government was expected to decide how the ban would work in the coming months, but one possible solution for the shakiness of facial scanning was a cascade-style system, similar to what we've see in bottle shops. Users might use face-scanning tech as a first hurdle and only be asked for further proof, if their result was within a 5-10-year margin of 16. "If you're within that margin for error, then you have to go to a second stage and find some other way of confirming that somebody is over the legal age," Corby said. Even so, everyone agreed it would not be perfect. "I'm optimistic, having seen the results," Hammond said. "Not necessarily making sure every 16-year-old doesn't get access, but making sure that most 16-year-olds don't get access to social media. "There's a number of solutions… and they have a level of accuracy. Now, whether the accuracy is good enough is a different question." Professor Given saw the end of the tech trial as an opportunity to reconsider the ban. "A responsible decision from Government would be weighing up the evidence in front of them and deciding whether that's actually a robust approach," she said. In the meantime, public expectations of the policy remained undeterred. "I think it's a really positive move for our young people," said John Paul College principal Craig Wattam. "I think that limiting their exposure to places that are potentially really dangerous is a really liberating thing." On the question of the tech's accuracy, he was also optimistic. "I guess this is the whole purpose of a trial," he said. "I'm confident that by the time we get closer to December… they may well have figured out more accurate ways to verify students' ages." A spokesperson for Communications Minister Anika Wells told ABC News the Government would be guided by advice from the eSafety Commissioner on how best to implement the ban. "We know that social media age-restrictions will not be the end-all, be-all solution for harms experienced by young people online, but it's a step in the right direction to keep our kids safer," they said. - ABC