'You knew they were death caps': Prosecution grills Erin Patterson
The prosecution has launched a blistering cross-examination of Erin Patterson, accusing her of knowingly preparing deadly death cap mushrooms for a lunch that left three people dead and a fourth critically ill.
Patterson has pleaded not guilty to three counts of murder and one attempted murder charge over a poisonous beef Wellington lunch she made for her former husband's family in July 2023.
The 50-year-old has spent days giving evidence in her own defence. But, on Thursday, the tone in the courtroom shifted dramatically as prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC began questioning Patterson over what she knew, what she did, and what she lied about.
'You were keen to get rid of the evidence, correct?'
Patterson admitted earlier in the week that she threw out her food dehydrator days after the fatal lunch and factory reset her phone to delete photos of mushrooms and the machine itself.
ADVERTISEMENT
'I panicked and didn't want [the detectives] to see them,' she told the court.
'It was a stupid kneejerk reaction… I was just scared. But I shouldn't have done it.'
Erin Patterson (Source: Nine)
But the prosecution argued that her actions were not about fear — they were about concealment.
'You knew that they were death cap mushrooms that you'd been dehydrating, correct?' Rogers asked.
'No, I didn't know that,' Patterson replied.
'You were very keen to dispose of any evidence that might connect you with the possession of death cap mushrooms?'
ADVERTISEMENT
'No, I didn't,' she said again.
Photos, scales, and a possible 'fatal dose'
The court was then shown photos found on Patterson's phone — images of mushrooms sitting on a dehydrator tray, balanced on kitchen scales.
Rogers said expert evidence from mycologist Dr Thomas May suggested the mushrooms were consistent with Amanita phalloides — the toxic species commonly known as death caps.
'I suggest you were weighing these mushrooms so you could calculate the weight required for... a fatal dose,' Rogers said.
'I disagree,' Patterson replied.
She also rejected the claim that she had foraged those mushrooms after seeing a post online showing where they were growing, saying simply: 'That's not correct.'
ADVERTISEMENT
Cancer lie under new scrutiny
The prosecution also turned its focus to Patterson's admitted lie about having cancer — a claim she made during the lunch to explain an upcoming medical procedure.
Earlier this week, Patterson said the lie was a cover for planned gastric bypass surgery and that she had felt ashamed.
Now, the court has been shown images and internet searches related to ovarian and brain cancer, allegedly accessed in May 2023.
"I suggest this information from the internet would allow you to tell a more convincing lie," Rogers said.
"That's theoretically true, but it's not what I did," Patterson replied.
She said she had previously feared she might have cancer in late 2021 or early 2022, but not in 2023.
ADVERTISEMENT
Religious tension, emojis and messages
Patterson was also questioned over Facebook messages that the prosecution claimed mocked her in-laws'religious advice, particularly her use of emojis such as 🙄 and 😐 when referring to prayer.
Patterson denied mocking Don and Gail Patterson, saying she was "frustrated" and didn't even know how to describe the emoji she used.
Don and Gail Patterson. (Source: Supplied)
"All I can say is it's a face with a straight line for a mouth."
Rogers suggested the tone of her messages combined with her claim she was an atheist in a religious household reflected deeper resentment. Patterson denied making those posts publicly.
Trial timeline extended
ADVERTISEMENT
Justice Christopher Beale told jurors on Thursday the trial was now likely to stretch into late June. Erin Patterson was expected to remain on the stand into next week, with court sitting Tuesday to Friday due to the King's Birthday public holiday in Australia.
Once her testimony concluded, legal discussions would take place behind closed doors before closing arguments and final jury directions began.
"Take all the time you need," Justice Beale told the jury.
Patterson has pleaded not guilty to all charges and continued to maintain her innocence.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
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
3 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.
Otago Daily Times
3 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Commissioner supports exemptions for two police recruits
By Sam Sherwood of RNZ The Police Commissioner says he fully supports the Assistant Commissioner's decision to sign off on exemptions from recruitment standards for two recruits. It comes after revelations Assistant Commissioner Jill Rogers personally signed off at least two exemptions from recruitment standards. On Wednesday, a police spokesperson confirmed in a statement that Rogers gave at least two approvals in the past year, and records were being checked to see if there were more. "As is already accepted, there had been a practice of discretion applied to some applicants to Police College in relation to the Physical Appraisal Test (PAT)," the statement said. "Assistant Commissioner Jill Rogers can recall two occasions in the last year where she gave approval to be applied to two applicants. There was no directive, instruction, or request issued in relation to this. We are searching available documentation to confirm this number. "As with other recruits, those two candidates went on to pass all the tests required to graduate as constables." The statement said Police Commissioner Richard Chambers had made it clear no more discretion was to be applied. This was following the result of an audit showing the use of discretion had become "too widespread for my liking", and it had developed "over a period of years that pre-dated my time as Commissioner". Chambers and Rogers spoke to media at Parliament on Thursday. Chambers said there had been occasions over the years where discretion had been given. "That's the fair and reasonable thing to do for staff who have their own personal circumstances as to why they might need a little extra support, but I've been clear going forward, there'll be no discretion." Rogers did not want to give any of the personal circumstances about the two recruits, but said she "deemed the circumstances of their recruitment process required an exemption and allowed that". "There are extenuating circumstances in a number of these cases, and so I don't want to talk about the personal circumstances. What I will say is the recruit pipeline to enter our initial training phase is a 12-step process. Once they get through that, they enter into the Police College, where they're required to pass all aspects of the training before they graduate as constables, so there's still a robust process for them to go for before they graduate." Chambers said he had spoken with Rogers about the circumstances of the two recruits and "100% support her decision". "Because when you take into account human beings choosing a career in the police that you know they aspire to be part of our organisation, there may be reasons. Sometimes we have to give some flexibility to their personal circumstances. Now that I understand those, which has been since Monday, I totally support the decision." Chambers said he was focused on "moving forward". "That's where I need to put my time and effort, and that's where I've asked my staff to put their time and effort to so that we can be very confident, which I am, that the quality of police officer for our country remains very, very high." Trust and confidence in police was "critical", Chambers said. "I've made a number of statements publicly about a number of things, actually, that sets an expectation and a standard that I know that it's not just me as a commissioner that can be proud of, it's my full executive and it's 15,000 colleagues across the country. "We're not always going to get it right, and I've said that before. You know, we're human beings at the end of the day, and but when, when things don't quite go to plan, you know, we've got to own it, learn from it, and move on, but the focus is moving forward and continuing to be the best that we can be." Politicians clash over police recruitment targets The government committed in its coalition agreements to recruiting 500 more police officers by November - but seems unlikely to meet that deadline. Labour's Police spokesperson Ginny Andersen said the revelations Rogers was involved raised serious questions about whether political pressure had been applied to the Police College to deliver on that promise. "It's pretty clear that people at the Police College themselves don't make these types of decisions, there's a hierarchy in police. "There's been a clear pattern here of recruits not meeting standards and when the government has promised 500 more police it's pretty clear that pressure has been applied to the college and that's not right. "They've delivered around 30 of 500, and they have until November. It's pretty clear they've failed," Andersen said. In a statement, Mitchell's office said a draft report showed "that for the delivery of the 1800 new police target, a discretionary pass was introduced where the literacy assessment standards were not met, which has since become common practice". "This does raise questions about political pressure." Labour, in 2017, committed to recruit an extra 1800 police officers, marking that milestone in June 2023. RNZ has requested a copy of the draft report the minister's statement refers to. "We have made very clear on discovering this practice that it does not meet our expectations and Police have responded quickly with the Commissioner directing that the practice be ended," his office said. "Labour should be upfront with New Zealanders about the mess they created in order to deliver their well overdue and incomplete 1800 new police target, instead of trying to blame this government that had to come in and clean it up." Further comment has been sought from Andersen responding to Mitchell's statements. She said the review made it clear "recruits failed physical tests and got through anyway". "This happened in the past year, under their watch. Mark Mitchell needs to take accountability for his failure to deliver 500 more police." The audit covers 1022 recruits between January 2024 and April 2025. Preliminary findings showed a significant number of applicants were allowed into the college, despite failing preliminary tests.
