Australia mushroom trial LIVE: defence set to conclude closing address in murder trial of Erin Patterson

Update:
Date: 2025-06-19T00:31:29.000Z
Title: What the jury heard on Wednesday
Content: 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 not a person 'carefully studying this information'.
Update:
Date: 2025-06-19T00:26:26.000Z
Title: Erin Patterson
Content: Welcome to day 35 of '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.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Guardian

2 hours ago

• The Guardian

Accidental foraging, reasonable doubt and ‘lies upon lies': Erin Patterson jury hears week of closing submissions in triple-murder trial

Colin Mandy SC, Erin Patterson's barrister in her triple-murder trial, was into the final minute of a closing submission that spanned three days when he started repeating one phrase, almost like a mantra, over and over. It was the last time the jury would hear from anyone in the case other than Justice Christopher Beale, a coda after the prosecution's closing argument and evidence from more than 50 witnesses. Twelve times Mandy said it in the last 60 seconds or so, the only answer, the one thing he wanted the jury to know: 'not guilty'. Patterson, 50, is facing three charges of murder and one of attempted murder in the Victorian supreme court. The charges relate to allegedly using death cap mushrooms in beef wellingtons served to lunch guests at her house in Leongatha on 29 July 2023. Patterson has pleaded not guilty to murdering the relatives of her estranged husband, Simon Patterson – his parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and aunt, Heather Wilkinson – and attempting to murder his uncle, Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband. 'If you think that it's possible that Erin deliberately poisoned the meal, you must find her not guilty,' Mandy said. 'If you think that maybe Erin deliberately poisoned the meal, you must find her not guilty. 'If you think that she probably deliberately poisoned the meal, you must find her not guilty.' 'Possible', 'maybe' and 'probably' were emphasised, a nod to what Mandy says is a prosecution case that has not cleared the high bar of reasonable doubt. The jury should not consider the trial like a boxing match, prosecution and defence slugging it out, but the high jump, Mandy told the court. Only the prosecution, however, had to clear that bar; Patterson didn't even need to jump. 'If you think at the end of your deliberations, taking into account the arguments that we've made that it is a [reasonable] possibility that this was an accident … you must find her not guilty,' Mandy said. 'And if you think it is a reasonable possibility that her evidence was true, you must find her not guilty. 'Our submission to you is the prosecution can't get over that high bar of beyond reasonable doubt. And when you consider the actual evidence … and consider it properly, methodically, analytically, your verdicts on these charges should be not guilty.' Of the evidence given by Patterson, Mandy told the jury she came through unscathed, her account of what really happened the day of the lunch intact. 'Her account remained coherent and consistent, day after day after day, even when challenged, rapid fire, from multiple angles, repeatedly.' Even if the jury were not convinced of that account, it did not mean Patterson was guilty, he said. 'If you reject her evidence, then what you have to do is take that evidence, put it to one side, and still consider whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence that they bring,' Mandy said. In the prosecution's telling, it wasn't just that Patterson's evidence was not convincing: it was a 'calculated deception' played on the jury. The contrast in message between the defence and prosecution was also delivered with a contrast in style. Nanette Rogers SC delivered the prosecution's closing address carefully and evenly, with the occasional pause for effect, her adherence to the pages in front of her so regimented that she would repeat sentences if she started them differently to how they had been written. Mandy was far more animated, almost theatrical, with flourishes that bordered on the comical. He mocked the prosecution case that Patterson planned the murders as far back as 28 April 2023, when it is alleged she picked death cap mushrooms after finding a post on iNaturalist, a citizen science website where the location of the mushrooms was shared. 'On the Crown case, you might think remarkably, extraordinarily, Erin Patterson observed and acted on the only two sightings of death cap mushrooms ever in South Gippsland … like she was sitting there waiting for them,' Mandy said. 'Never seen them before in South Gippsland. iNaturalist says they don't grow here. Refresh. Nup, still not there. Refresh. Still not there. Refresh, still not there.' Mandy then exclaimed 'ah', his hands wide, pretending to be Patterson discovering the post about death cap mushrooms. 'How likely is that?' he asked. Mandy lent all the way forward on to the lectern at this stage and immediately shifted tone. 'There's not one scrap of evidence that she actually saw those posts,' he said, shaking his right pointer finger towards the jury. The closing addresses are not evidence, but new matters emerged, or were drawn into sharper focus. Mandy said it was possible Patterson became unwell earlier than her lunch guests because she tasted the duxelles as she prepared the beef wellingtons. Patterson said the duxelles tasted bland when she cooked down button mushrooms bought from the supermarket, so she added dried mushrooms from a Tupperware container in her pantry. At the time, she thought these were from an Asian grocer, but now believed the container also held death cap mushrooms she accidentally foraged. Mandy made clear, however, that Patterson gave no such evidence that she re-tasted the duxelles after adding the dried mushrooms. He also wanted to make clear Patterson was 'not on trial for lying'. Moreover, Mandy told the jury, if she had been lying about some of the points the prosecution alleged she had, she would have told better lies: why say she didn't know what was in her vomit, if saying it contained beef wellington would help her? Why not say she had vomited after overeating sooner, given that the greater proximity of vomiting to eating the beef wellington, the greater the likelihood it would reduce the extent of illness? This came after Rogers had catalogued these lies – lies she said Patterson told to other witnesses in the case, and to the jury. Lies told not in the heat of the moment, lies Patterson has admitted, lies she has not. Perhaps the starkest of these, Rogers said, was Patterson's lie about weight loss surgery. 'In the lead up to the lunch and in the periods after the lunch, Erin Patterson told so many lies it's hard to keep track of them. She has told lies upon lies because she knew the truth would implicate her,' the prosecutor said. 'When she knew her lies had been uncovered, she came up with a carefully constructed narrative to fit with the evidence – almost. There are some inconsistencies that she just cannot account for so she ignores them, says she can't remember those conversations, or says other people are just wrong, even her own children. 'You will therefore have no difficulty in rejecting … that this was all a horrible foraging accident.' Rogers said there was no other 'reasonable alternative explanation for what happened to the lunch guests, other than the accused deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms and deliberately included them in the meal she served them, with an intention to kill them'. Justice Christopher Beale has told the jury that his closing charge to them, when he will discuss the legal principles that apply to them considering their verdict and direct them on how the evidence can be used, will take at least two days. 'First of all, maintain an open mind. You have heard the evidence. You have heard the closing speeches of the prosecution and the defence, but you have not heard my charge,' Beale said. 'The second point, and the last point, is it is more important than ever that you have a good weekend. I really want you to come back refreshed.' The trial at the Latrobe Valley law courts in Morwell was originally expected to last five to six weeks, but is set to stretch into a ninth. Court will resume on Tuesday, meaning the jury will not retire to consider its verdict until Wednesday at the earliest.

Daily Mail​

2 hours ago

• Daily Mail​

Mum's tearful plea for help finding her son Darren Garwood after he vanished without a trace almost a month ago

A Perth mother has fought back tears as she begged for help finding her missing son after he vanished without a trace in bushland almost a month ago. Darren Garwood, 38, left a home in Sawyers Valley, east of Perth, on the morning of Sunday May 25. He had been driving a white Ford Ranger utility with registration SW18692 when police believe he travelled deep into bushland south of the Great Eastern Highway. Mr Garwood's mother, Cecelia McCarron, said she was desperate for answers. 'Not knowing where he is, is extremely, incredibly hard for us,' Ms McCarron told reporters on Friday. 'As his mother, and also his father and the rest of our family, I'm pleading if anyone has any information, whether from before his disappearance or at any point over the past four weeks, we would be so deeply grateful for your help. 'His last known location was somewhere in the Mundaring area, possibly within the national parks - anywhere between Mundaring and York. 'So please just help us bring him home.' Mr Garwood's bank account and mobile phone haven't been accessed since he disappeared. Police are concerned he wasn't carrying enough resources for an extended time in the bush. Sergeant Tania Mackenzie said aerial and ground searches for Mr Garwood, including along bush tracks in the Mundaring area, had yielded no sign of him, leading officers to believe he had gone off the beaten path. 'It is unusual, we know Darren spoke to family on the Saturday night, late in the night, and is normally in contact with family and friends, so it is unusual, and hence our concerns for his welfare,' Sgt Mackenzie said. 'All we can ask is that people look out for his car, that's our best chance, (for) someone to see his white Ford Ranger in that bush land, and (for people to) just to be cognisant of the fact that he's probably gone deeper into the bushland, rather than just on tracks.' Officers are not treating Mr Garwood's disappearance as suspicious.

Daily Mail​

4 hours ago

• Daily Mail​

What comes next for Karen Read? Acquitted of murder and exalted to social media stardom... but not free from the courtroom just yet

Karen Read is not going to jail for the murder of her Boston cop boyfriend John O'Keefe, but she's far from out of the woods or out of the courtroom when it comes to the controversial case. Read 45, sobbed on Wednesday after being acquitted of murder for her police officer boyfriend in a retrial that has gripped and divided America. But the happy tears in the Massachusetts criminal courtroom merely closed a chapter on the ordeal rather than the whole book with Read still a long way from returning to a normal life. Now legal eagles and PR executives have weighed in on what comes next for the financial analyst. DUI Conviction While Read was cleared of the most serious charge stemming from the January 29, 2022 death she still faced some legal repercussions. The financial analyst was convicted on the lesser charge of drunk driving, which carries a maximum penalty of 2.5 years for a first offense. However, at sentencing she was handed one year of probation and ordered to take alcohol awareness classes. Probation for the offense in Massachusetts typically includes 30 hours of community service. The penalty is the standard one handed down to a first time offender. Many high-profile defendants walk away with book deals to give a first-person account of what really happened behind the scenes. Although it is unclear if Read has been offered one, or if she's even interested in one, it could continue to help her star rise after becoming a household name due to the trial. Netflix and HBO have already covered her trial in documentaries, leaving the window wide open for Read to join one. Criminal jurors have already started coming forward with their takes and opinions on the case and Read could very much do the same now that she can no longer face a murder charge for O'Keefe's death. However, if Read does choose to step into the spotlight further, any money she makes off the endeavors could be garnished if she loses her upcoming civil case with O'Keefe's family and has to pay damages. Civil Case Read's acquittal is far from the end of the grueling legal process and she is now facing another round in court. Read and her legal team are gearing up for a civil trial - a $50,000 wrongful death lawsuit filed by O'Keefe's family against her and two local bars. 'After a not-guilty verdict against Read, a civil case is all the family has left if they want to seek justice,' New Mexico-based lawyer, John W. Day, told 'The O'Keefe family will want this civil trial to move forward quickly while people are still talking about the verdict.' No date has been set for the trial yet, as it was put on pause while Read dealt with her criminal case. The case was filed against Read and two local bars - CF McCarthy's and Waterfall Bar and Grille - in August 2024 in the Plymouth Superior Court in Brockton and the family is seeking at least $50,000 in damages for O'Keefe's death. They argue Read engaged in reckless conduct that resulted in O'Keefe's death and that the bars, 'negligently served alcohol to an intoxicated person.' Many experts told Daily Mail that it would be beneficial for Read to push through the civil case as early as possible as her stronger-than-ever fanbase is ready to defend her. Tom Flaws, a Boston-based lawyer with the firm Altman Nussbaum Shunnarah, told Daily Mail that the O'Keefe family has a 'much lower bar to prove' that Read killed their son compared to the state in the criminal case. But that doesn't mean it will be an easy win for the heartbroken family, especially as Read's fanbase stays strong and criminal jurors continue to come out and cast doubt that the 45-year-old did it. 'That's a problem for the plaintiffs of the civil case,' Flaws said. Whereas, in a criminal trial, the State of Massachusetts had to prove Read performed a criminal act beyond a reasonable doubt. In the civil case, the O'Keefe family only has to prove that their version of events is plausible based on the preponderance of the evidence. If they can prove there is a more than a 50 percent chance of probability, they can win. 'It's a much lower burden,' Flaws, who has 20 years experience in the field, said. 'It's a bigger challenge for her [Read],' Florida-based lawyer, Emmanuel Galimidi, told Galimidi, who owns his own firm Galimidi Law, also believes the criminal jurors' opinions will influence her civil case. 'I don't see how they don't,' he said. 'That would influence me.' Considering how big the case became, Galimidi thinks there will be a good chance the local jurors picked for the civil trial will have at least heard of or be familiar with the case and will know the verdict of the criminal trial. 'Jury selection in very important,' the lawyer, who has 22 years of law experience and worked both on the plaintiffs and defendants' sides, said. 'In this one, it's much more important.' He also expects, regardless of the verdict, there will be an appeal made 'due to the nature of the case.' Tom Flaws, a Boston-based lawyer, told that the O'Keefe family has a 'much lower bar to prove' that Read killed their son compared to the state in the criminal case. Eric Schiffer said Read needs to rapidly change her reputation before entering another courtroom Obstacles The biggest difference - and perhaps an obstacle for Read - will be her deposition. Unlike her criminal case, she will have to take the stand and it will be the first time jurors and crime junkies alike will hear her side of the story directly from the source. Just because prosecutors couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Read hit O'Keefe with her car, it does not mean she did not. Her late boyfriend's law enforcement officer status only increased scrutiny on her actions. 'It plays a role [in her reputation],' Schiffer said. 'It's hard to undo.' Schiffer said Read will need to be 'extremely' careful while on the stand during her deposition to keep her reputation intact. 'She's probably better off doing [the trial] now, coming off the win,' Eric Schiffer, who helps high-profile people fix their reputations, told 'She needs to take every word seriously. Things can go boom.' Despite the buzz around her upcoming deposition, Galimidi doesn't expect to hear anything he hasn't already. 'I don't expect there to be any big revelation here,' he said. Damages Although the O'Keefe family filed for at least $50,000 in damages, they could be awarded a far higher sum. The question comes down to who can pay it for both the bars and Read. Although a jury can decide how much each defendant has to pay, if they don't have it, the family could be chasing it for years, especially with Read, who is a private citizen. 'Remember that this is how the Goldman family and Nicole Simpson's family went after OJ Simpson after he was acquitted or murder,' Day told 'They got a $33million judgment against OJ, but then had to try to collect on it.' 'One issue the family could face: What can they get from Karen Read, or is she judgment-proof? Meaning, what assets does she have that the family could get in a civil judgment?' A potential asset they family could garnish from is if Read is offered a book deal. They could tap into her royalties for years. Another way they could get money from Read, if she doesn't have the damages amount, is to garnish her wages. There are state limitations on what percentage can be taken out of her paychecks. 'You can try and garnish,' Galimidi said. 'That's entirely possible.' Galimidi suspects the O'Keefe family may or may not have bought in the two bars as collateral, as the establishments more than likely have insurance plans that will help cover them and offer a higher damages amount to the family. However, the locally-owned establishments might not have much in insurance, compared to big-named chained. 'There's a difference suing IBM versus Joe's Computer Shop [down the street],' the Florida lawyer said. He also believes the family has a good case against the bars for serving her an abundance of alcohol. 'It's a strong case against the bars,' he told 'It's a strong one for the plaintiffs because of her blood-alcohol [level].' However, Flaws said the plaintiffs still have to 'prove that she hit him' to prevail. Reputation Rehabilitation As the verdict was read out on Wednesday, cheers were heard outside the courthouse from her hoard of supporters, however experts warn Read has a long way to go before she can shake off the controversy. Read made headlines throughout the trial for her outlandish behavior during the case, which included winking at cameras and laughing and joking with her counsel in court. Schiffer said Read's name is a 'punch line' at the moment and she absolutely have to fix her public image before stepping back in the court. 'She's been shredded online,' Schiffer told He thinks it's 'critical' for Read to rapidly patch up the 'scraps' of her reputation prior to her civil trial as the burden of proof is much, much lower compared to a criminal case. 'That's her biggest challenge,' he said. If she loses the civil case, Schiffer said her reputation will experience 'spontaneous combustion.' 'It's not a death blow, but it will hobble her,' he said. And even if she wins, her reputation won't magically pop back either as many will accuse her of being of being 'famous for the wrong reasons,' he said. 'It's a good case, but it could be worse,' Galimidi said.