Latest news with #ErinPatterson
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Erin Patterson's mushroom murder trial jury soon to put the puzzle pieces together
For seven weeks, jigsaw pieces have been shaken out before the jury in Erin Patterson's triple-murder trial. Dozens of witnesses were called and exhibits ranged from photos allegedly showing death cap mushrooms being dehydrated in the lead-up to the murders, to reams of data extracted from seized electronic devices. The trial of Erin Patterson, who stands accused of using a poisoned meal to murder three relatives, continues. Look back at how Thursday's hearing unfolded in our live blog. To stay up to date with this story, subscribe to ABC News. In the trial's eighth week, the prosecution and defence used those pieces to assemble and present two contrasting pictures to the jury. The prosecution told the jury the pieces clicked into place to reveal Ms Patterson as a murderer, who had deliberately killed three relatives and attempted to murder a fourth. The lunch she had hosted at her regional Victorian home in 2023 was built on a series of deceptions, the prosecution alleged. The lethal one, lead prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC said, was Ms Patterson's lacing of the beef Wellington meals she served to her relatives. "The sinister deception was to use a nourishing meal as the vehicle to deliver a deadly poison," Dr Rogers told the Supreme Court jury. She invited the jury to consider the pieces of evidence around the "deviations" Ms Patterson made to the original beef Wellington recipe. While the method in the mother of two's cookbook called for a log of meat, individual eye fillets were used. Ms Patterson told the court that was because individual eye fillets were the only ones she could find. The prosecutor suggested that was a lie and the truth was far more calculated. "That choice to make individual portions allowed her complete control over the ingredients in each individual parcel," Dr Rogers said. "It is a control … that she exercised with devastating effect. "It allowed her to give the appearance of sharing in the same meal, whilst ensuring that she did not consume a beef Wellington parcel that she had laced with death cap mushrooms." Ms Patterson's decision to dump her food dehydrator (later found to contain death cap mushroom residue) at the tip and then lie to police about it was behaviour the prosecution said could be slotted together to form incriminating conduct. "If there was nothing incriminating about the dehydrator, why hide it?" Dr Rogers rhetorically asked the jury. "There is only one reasonable explanation: she knew it would incriminate her. "She knew that she had dehydrated death cap mushrooms in that appliance and that she had done deliberately done so, and she knew that keeping it was going to be far too risky." The prosecutor told the jury the evidence laid before them did not point to any "particular motive" for the crime, but this was not a requirement of the murder charges. "The question is not why she did this," she said. "The question you have to determine is: has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did this deliberately?" While not alleging a particular motive, the prosecution placed more pieces of trial evidence before the jury to fill out its puzzle. Facebook messages with friends showed Ms Patterson's animosity towards her Patterson in-laws and mockery of their deeply held religious beliefs, Dr Rogers said. "She presented one side while expressing contrary beliefs to others." In concluding her address, the prosecutor told the jury the legal bar for proving murder beyond reasonable doubt had been "well and truly met". When all of the evidence was combined, Dr Rogers suggested the jury would be satisfied the accused had deliberately sought out death caps and served them to her relatives with malicious intent. "One piece on its own or by itself might tell you not very much at all about what the picture is," she said. "But as you start putting more and more pieces together and looking at it as a whole, the picture starts to become clear." She said while jurors may feel the alleged murders were "too horrible, too cold and beyond your comprehension", they needed to remain focused on the evidence. "Don't let your emotional reaction dictate your verdict, one way or the other," Dr Rogers said. When Ms Patterson's defence barrister Colin Mandy SC rose to his feet, he told the jury the absence of an alleged motive meant the prosecution's jigsaw was incomplete. "Without a motive, you're left guessing about the most important element of the offence in this trial and that's intention," Mr Mandy said. He walked through some of the tense communications between the accused and her estranged husband Simon Patterson several months before the lunch. But he said the picture they painted was a fairly ordinary one of two separated people managing the joint care of their young children. "There is nothing unusual about it. In fact, quite the opposite," Mr Mandy said. "It would be in some cases unusual if there wasn't that kind of spat or disagreement or frustration. He accused the prosecution of putting before the jury a series of "ridiculous, convoluted propositions" that were not supported by the evidence. He said Ms Patterson's simpler explanation of a dreadful "accident" was a truthful one that had emerged "unscathed" after days of cross-examination. "Her account remained coherent and consistent, day after day after day, even when challenged, rapid fire, from multiple angles, repeatedly," he said. Under that explanation, a Tupperware container in Ms Patterson's Leongatha pantry contained a mix of dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer and ones she had foraged from the Gippsland region. In that mix, Mr Mandy suggested, were the death cap mushrooms later added to the lunch. "The prosecution says she had them deliberately, the defence says she had them accidentally," he said. He told them Ms Patterson's actions after the lunch were the panic of an innocent woman in the aftermath of a ghastly accident. "Erin got into the witness box and told you, she did those things because she panicked when confronted with the terrible possibility, terrible realisation, that her actions had caused the illnesses of people that she loved," he said. In closing, Mr Mandy told jurors the prosecution had tried to "force the evidence to fit their theory in a way that does not apply to jigsaw puzzle pieces". "Stretching interpretations, ignoring alternative explanations because they don't align perfectly with the narrative," he said. "Missing puzzle pieces in a jigsaw puzzle can make the picture incomplete, but missing evidence is much more significant." He reminded the jury that if they did not accept all of Ms Patterson's evidence as truthful, they needed to set it to the side and consider whether the evidence actually existed to prove murder and attempted murder beyond reasonable doubt. After both sides in a trial that has astounded observers around the world had finished their address, the judge indicated the most important part lay ahead. Justice Christopher Beale will begin delivering his final instructions to the jury on Tuesday, which he said would break down the legal principles at stake in the case. After that, it will fall to the jury to begin piecing the puzzle together themselves.
The Guardian
15 hours ago
- The Guardian
Closing arguments conclude in Australia's mushroom trial as jury deliberation approaches
Closing addresses from the prosecution and defence have now concluded in the triple murder trial of Erin Patterson. Next it will be up to the jury to deliberate and reach a unanimous verdict. Patterson faces three charges of murder and one charge of attempted murder relating to a lunch she served at her house in Victoria's Leongatha on 29 July 2023. She has pleaded not guilty to murdering three relatives of her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, and attempting to murder another. Guardian Australia's justice and courts reporter, Nino Bucci, has been attending the trial since it began, and explains the latest developments
The Guardian
17 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘Calculated deceptions' and ‘ridiculous' propositions: what the Erin Patterson jury heard in the final week of her triple-murder trial
The prosecution and defence in Erin Patterson's triple-murder trial concluded their closing addresses this week. Jurors are expected to retire next week – week nine of the trial – to consider their verdicts. Before their deliberations, Justice Christopher Beale will instruct the jury. 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 has pleaded not guilty to the charges. Here's what the jury heard from each side in their closing remarks. The crown's case is centred on 'four calculated deceptions' it says were made by Patterson. Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC outlined these to jurors on Monday: 1. First, the 'fabricated' cancer claim Patterson used as a pretence for inviting guests to the beef wellington lunch on 29 July 2023. Evidence in the trial from various family members showed the lunch invitation was a 'very unusual occurrence', Rogers said. Patterson 'knew how to tell convincing lies' about cancer 'because she had put in the research', the court heard. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 2. The 'lethal doses' of poison 'secreted' into the beef wellingtons Patterson cooked for her guests. Rogers labelled this 'the critical deception' – that Patterson deliberately sought out death cap mushrooms and added the toxic fungi to the beef wellingtons. Patterson deviated from the recipe she claimed she used, which called for a single dish to be cut into smaller serves, instead making individual beef wellingtons to ensure she would not accidentally consume death cap mushrooms, Rogers said. 3. Patterson attempted to make it seem as if she had also suffered death cap mushroom poisoning from the meal in the days after. The jury should reject the defence's suggestion that Patterson suffered a 'mild' version of death cap mushroom poisoning, Rogers said. She did this to make it appear that she ate exactly the same meal as her guests, the court heard. The totality of the medical evidence showed Patterson did not suffer death cap mushroom poisoning but tried to make it appear as if she did, Rogers said. Sign up to Afternoon Update Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 4. The 'sustained' cover-up Patterson engaged in to conceal the truth. When Patterson realised death cap mushroom poisoning was suspected, she lied and 'acted deceptively' to deflect blame and suspicion about what she had done, the prosecution said. Rogers pointed to Patterson lying about feeding her children leftovers from the meal, with mushrooms scraped off, and lying about all the mushrooms coming from Woolworths and an Asian grocer – lies the defence disputes. The prosecution also highlighted Patterson dumping her Sunbeam dehydrator at a local tip four days after the lunch. 5. Rogers said Patterson also engaged in a fifth deception – giving 'untruthful evidence' to the jury when she testified in her trial. During her eight days in the witness box, Rogers said the accused told 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,' Rogers said. 1. Patterson's defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, told the jury the trial boiled down to two simple issues they needed to determine. First, was there a reasonable possibility that death cap mushrooms were put into the lunch accidentally? Second, was there a reasonable possibility that Patterson did not intend to kill or cause serious injury to her guests? 'If either of those is a reasonable possibility, on all of the evidence, then you find her not guilty,' he said. 2. Mandy outlined the top four 'ridiculous' and 'convoluted' propositions of the crown's case. He urged the jury to reject these, the first being that Patterson would commit the alleged offences without a motive. Mandy said a thorough investigation, including the analysis of electronic devices, messages exchanged with her online friends, and evidence from family witnesses, found 18 years' worth of 'anti-motive evidence' – reasons why she would not want to do anything to her guests. 3. Mandy said the prosecution's argument about the 'cancer lie as a ruse' to entice Patterson's lunch guests to her home should also be rejected. He disputed it by pointing to evidence she told none of her guests about it before the lunch and only told them after they ate the beef wellington meal. 4. The prosecution's argument that Patterson believed the lunch guests would take the cancer secret to the grave with them was 'illogical', Mandy said. Patterson had told people about medical issues weeks before the lunch and her estranged husband, Simon, knew about it and did not attend the fateful meal. 'The whole world could have known about it by the time the lunch was over,' Mandy said. 5. Mandy challenged the prosecution's theory that Patterson, knowing her guests would become ill, thought that it would be passed off as a 'strange case of gastro where everyone died, except her'. The defence argued their client's actions in the days after the lunch were reflective of her panicking about being blamed for the deadly lunch.
ABC News
18 hours ago
- ABC News
Kill them all, or reconnect? Our Friday Wrap
The sides in Erin Patterson's triple murder trial delivered their closing addresses this week, with one calling the lunch a sinister deception and the other a friendly family gathering. In this episode, Rachael Brown and Stephen Stockwell talk through the key arguments from each side, share some reflections on the week and explain the next stages. If you've got questions about the case that you'd like Rachael and Stocky to answer in future episodes, send them through to mushroomcasedaily@ - It's the case that's captured the attention of the world. Three people died and a fourth survived an induced coma after eating beef wellington at a family lunch, hosted by Erin Patterson. Police allege the beef wellington contained poisonous mushrooms, but Erin Patterson says she's innocent. Now, the accused triple murderer is fighting the charges in a regional Victorian courthouse. Investigative reporter Rachael Brown and producer Stephen Stockwell are on the ground, bringing you all the key moments from the trial as they unravel in court. From court recaps to behind-the-scenes murder trial explainers, the Mushroom Case Daily podcast is your eyes and ears inside the courtroom. Keep up to date with new episodes of Mushroom Case Daily, now releasing every day on the ABC listen app.
1News
a day 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.
