Erin Patterson, accused of poisoning four relatives, including Ian Wilkinson (inset) has pleaded not guilty, denying any intent to harm.
Erin Patterson, accused of poisoning four relatives, including Ian Wilkinson (inset) has pleaded not guilty, denying any intent to harm.
Messages depicting alleged mushroom poisoner Erin Patterson “venting” to her online friends are being used by prosecutors to distract from evidence she had a loving and supportive relationship with her in-laws, her defence has told a jury.
Continuing his final remarks on Wednesday, defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, turned toevidence the prosecution had led about tension in Patterson’s relationship with her husband Simon and his parents Don and Gail in December 2022.
He said a “fair reading” of the messages was that the estranged couple were being petty amid a dispute over their children’s schooling and finances.
“Our submission is it’s an entirely unremarkable minor blow up,” he said.
“It stands out in this case because it’s the only one. These people are eternally polite to one another.”
Mandy argued the messages depicted Patterson being honest about being hurt and standing up for herself.
“They [the prosecution] say to you ignore the long history of love and support … and instead rely on three days of upset from Erin and recollections of these online friends,” he said.
“This was an aberration in her dealings with the Pattersons and there’s nothing to say otherwise.”
The defence barrister suggested the prosecution, who have not put forward a motive for the alleged crimes, had focused on these messages in an attempt to “undermine that Erin had a loving, supportive and respectful relationship with Don and Gail”.
Patterson, 50, is facing trial in Australia accused of murdering Don and Gail and Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson and attempting to murder Wilkinson’s husband Ian with a poisoned beef wellington on July 29, 2023.
She has pleaded not guilty, telling the jury she did not intentionally poison her lunch guests nor want them harmed.
‘Terrible lie’: Defence addresses cancer claim
Moving on to the prosecution’s claim Patterson used a fake cancer diagnosis as a “ruse” to initiate the lunch, Mandy took the jury through what he said the evidence showed.
He suggested the more likely explanation was the one Patterson gave, that she felt there was some distance with her in-laws and wanted to be proactive in maintaining the relationship.
Erin Patterson is accused of poisoning the parents of her estranged husband Simon Patterson. Photo / NewsWire
Mandy said Patterson told Don and Gail about a lump on her elbow that she was worried about in June 2023 and, once the issue resolved itself, chose to use it as cover for weight-loss surgery.
He told the jury that in a murder trial where the prosecution criticised every misstep, this could seem like a “terrible lie”.
But in the context of Patterson’s longstanding struggles with her weight and depression, Mandy argued the “small lie” seemed more understandable.
“Those things are private and deeply embarrassing,” he said.
Mandy told the jury that with the knowledge of the frailty of memory, Patterson’s account of hinting to her lunch guests that she may need treatment in regards to the lump was not so different to Ian Wilkinson’s testimony and what Simon said his father told him about the lunch.
“It’s not made up, it’s not fabricated; that’s the evidence. People became interested in mushrooms during the Covid lockdowns.”
Turning to evidence a Cooler Master computer was used to look up sightings of death cap mushrooms on the iNaturalist website on May 28, 2022, Mandy said there was “little doubt” it was Patterson.
“It makes perfect sense in the context of that dawning interest … she would become aware of death caps,” he said.
“They are the, I think this is the evidence, the deadliest mushroom in the world.”
Mandy suggested Patterson had visited the website while looking up the question, “do they grow in South Gippsland?”, with the evidence showing at the time there was no recorded instances on iNaturalist.
Returning to the topic later in the day, Mandy said the evidence showed Patterson spent two minutes looking at the iNaturalist website before ordering dinner.
“This interaction was idle curiosity … this was not someone doing deep research,” he argued.
He said there was “not one scrap of evidence” that Patterson had observed the two death cap mushroom sightings in Loch and Outtrim, which the prosecution suggested she could have used to source the poisonous fungi.
“On the Crown’s case, you might think remarkably, extraordinarily Erin Patterson observed and acted on the only two sightings of death cap mushrooms ever in South Gippsland,” Mandy said.
“How likely is that?”
Context of alleged poisoner’s relationships ‘important’
The defence barrister told the jury Patterson’s relationships with her husband Simon and his family would be an important part of their consideration of the case.
He argued there was a wealth of evidence from witnesses in the case that Patterson had positive relationships with her in-laws and the wider Patterson family.
A jury has been told Erin Patterson had a loving relationship with her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson. Photo / Supplied
Turning to her estranged husband, Mandy said the evidence was in the seven years since their separation there was no animosity and no awkwardness until a dispute in December 2022.
“If there were disagreements they were resolved smoothly and respectfully,” he said.
“It says a lot about the relationship.”
Mandy said there was “no sign” to anyone else the relationship was anything but a good separation, arguing this was the context in which the alleged crimes occurred.
Continuing his final remarks to the jury on Wednesday, Mandy argued the Crown had invited the jury to engage in hindsight reasoning by asking them to consider what they would have done.
Colin Mandy, SC, claims the prosecution focused on minor disputes to undermine Erin Patterson's positive family ties. Photo / Asanka Ratnayake, Getty Images
“What hindsight reasoning does is shift the burden of proof on to the defence,” he said.
“When the prosecution asks what you would have done they’re asking you to convict Ms Patterson based on deviation from some assumed norm.”
Mandy told the jury his client was “not on trial for being a liar” and had told them herself she regrets her lies.
“The lies in the days afterwards, everything she does in the days afterwards doesn’t change the intention of the meal,” he said.
“It biases the assessment of intent and state of mind.”
The submission comes after Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC, asked the jury to consider what they would have done in Patterson’s situation if the poisoned lunch was an accident on Tuesday.
“Would you go into self-preservation mode just worrying about protecting yourself from blame?” Rogers asked.
“No. That’s not what you’d do. You would do everything you could to help the people you love.”
Mushroom murder trial rumbles on
As the jury returned from an afternoon break on Tuesday, Justice Christopher Beale advised the 14-person panel he would be waiting until next week to deliver his charge.
“Just to keep you in the loop in relation to timelines, I won’t commence my charge to you until Monday,” the judge said.
“That charge is not likely to finish, let’s say this, it may spill over to Wednesday. With the wind at my back, I might finish it by Tuesday afternoon.
“But I just tell you that so you can organise your affairs and I’ll give you another update as we go along.”
After the completion of the evidence in the case last week, Justice Beale told jurors he expected the closing arguments to take a couple of days each, before he began his charge.
He said his charge would involve three parts: directions about legal principles, identifying the key issues in the case and summarising the evidence and arguments.
On Tuesday, Rogers wrapped her final address by arguing there was no reasonable alternative explanation for what happened other than Patterson deliberately sourcing death caps and including them in the meal, intending to kill.
Mandy, on the other hand, began his address by arguing the Crown had “cherry-picked” facts to support their hypothesis and ignored others.
“Erin Patterson had a motive to keep these people in her world so that they could keep supporting her and her children … why would she take wonderful, active, loving grandparents away from her own children?” he questioned.
