Mushroom murder jury to decide Erin Patterson's fate as judge outlines her ‘incriminating conduct'

Independent

9 hours ago

The jury in the mushroom poisoning trial of Erin Patterson will start deliberating next week after judge Christopher Beale continued giving it instructions on Thursday.
Ms Patterson, 50, has pleaded not guilty to murdering her former in-laws Don and Gail Patterson and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson, by allegedly serving them death cap mushrooms in a beef wellington lunch in July 2023.
Her in-laws and Wilkinson died in the days after the meal from the effects of mushroom poisoning. Wilkinson's husband survived after weeks in hospital.
Mr Beale reminded the jury of Ms Patterson's alleged incriminating conduct, which the prosecution has argued demonstrates her guilt.
This included lying about using dried mushrooms from an Asian grocery, disposing of a dehydrator at the local tip, handing police a secondary phone and not her primary phone – which was never found – as well as lying that she fed her children leftovers from the beef wellington with the mushroom paste scraped off.
Mr Beale also told the jury that Ms Patterson initially refused treatment and left the Leongatha Hospital against medical advice during her first presentation. During her second visit, she was again reluctant to receive medical care and seemed hesitant to seek treatment for her children.
'The prosecution argues the only reasonable explanation for her unwillingness to receive emergency treatment … is that she knew she hadn't consumed death cap mushrooms because she had deliberately poisoned her guests … making sure she also did not consume toxins,' Mr Beale told the jury.
'Defence says … she found it difficult to accept she may have suffered death cap mushroom poisoning. She had not come prepared to be admitted overnight. She needed to make arrangements for the children and the animals … and was intending to return to hospital.'
The jury also heard that Ms Patterson reset a phone, referred to as phone B, multiple times in early August 2023, before handing it to police instead of her regular device, phone A, which was never found.
On 2 August 2023, she allegedly disposed of a food dehydrator at a local tip. In a police interview three days later, prosecutors said she lied about her phone number, denied ever foraging for mushrooms, claimed never to have dehydrated food, and falsely stated she had never owned a dehydrator.
Mr Beale began delivering his final instructions to the jury on Tuesday following closing arguments from both prosecution and defence last week.
He said this process would continue until lunchtime on Monday after which the jury would be sequestered and remain in accommodation until they reach a verdict.
Mr Beale also addressed the second major allegation – that Ms Patterson knowingly used toxic dried mushrooms. The prosecution had claimed she was evasive about their source when doctors urgently needed the information to treat victims, and that she gave inconsistent accounts of where she bought them – citing Oakleigh, Glen Waverley, and Mount Waverley.
They had argued that her detailed memory of other events but not the shop 'beggars belief' and that the story about the Asian grocer 'just couldn't be true'.
In contrast, the defence argued that the prosecution was cherry-picking, Mr Beale told the jury. They said Ms Patterson was broadly consistent, human memory was fallible, and that owning a dehydrator was unrelated to any malicious intent. They also criticised investigators for not checking the Glen Waverley shops.
Earlier, Mr Beale reminded the jury: 'You are the judges of the facts.'
Mr Beale said there would be three parts to his charge. 'First, I will give you directions regarding the principles of law which apply to this case. Some you have heard already, others will be new to you. You must apply all these principles of law carefully,' he said.
'Secondly, I will tell you the issues that you need to decide and will summarise: (a) the evidence that relates to those issues, and (b) the arguments made by the prosecution and defence in relation to those issues. Now, as you more than anyone will appreciate, there has been a great deal of evidence in this case and a lot of arguments made to you by the prosecution and defence.'
He said: 'You must consider all of the evidence, not just the parts of it that I mention. In part three of my charge, I will give you further directions regarding the requirement that your verdicts must be unanimous and the procedure that will follow when receiving your verdicts.'
The trial continues.