Australian woman accused of triple mushroom murders breaks down in court
By Alasdair Pal
SYDNEY (Reuters) -An Australian woman accused of murdering three of her estranged husband's elderly relatives with a meal laced with poisonous mushrooms wept as she was questioned over expletive-laden messages about the victims on Tuesday, in a case that has captivated the country.
Erin Patterson, 50, is charged with the July 2023 murders of her mother-in-law Gail Patterson, father-in-law Donald Patterson and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson, along with the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband.
The prosecution alleges she knowingly served the guests Beef Wellington that contained lethal death cap mushrooms at her home in Leongatha, a town of around 6,000 people some 135 km (84 miles) from Melbourne.
Patterson denies the charges, with her defence saying the deaths were a "terrible accident". She faces a life sentence if found guilty.
Appearing as a witness for her own defence, Erin Patterson was questioned on Tuesday by her barrister Colin Mandy about a series of expletive-laden messages sent to friends regarding the Patterson family.
The court previously heard the relationship between the accused and her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, deteriorated shortly before the alleged murders due to a disagreement over child support.
"I wish I'd never said it. I feel ashamed for saying it and I wish that the family didn't have to hear that I said that," she said of the messages, that the court has previously heard in the prosecution's case.
"I was really frustrated with Simon but it wasn't Don and Gail's fault," she told the court through tears.
Erin Patterson is the first witness for the defence after the prosecution rested its case on Monday, following a month of evidence from witnesses, including relatives and medical, forensic and mushroom experts.
The accused began her testimony on Monday afternoon. It is unknown how long she will give evidence for or whether she will be cross-examined by the prosecution.
The trial, which began on April 29, has seen intense interest from Australian and international media, with podcasters, journalists and documentary-makers descending on the town of Morwell, around two hours east of Melbourne, where the trial is being held.
State broadcaster ABC's daily podcast about proceedings is currently the most popular in the country, with two others also high in the charts.
The trial continues.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Canadian bill seeks to deny hearings to some asylum-seekers
By Anna Mehler Paperny TORONTO (Reuters) -A Canadian border-security bill introduced by the Liberal government earlier this week may deny some asylum-seekers a refugee hearing and make it easier for the government to revoke migrants' status. The bill comes as the government seeks to address U.S. concerns about its border security and reduce the number of migrants in the country. In addition to denying some refugee hearings and allowing the suspension, cancellation or variance of immigration documents, the bill facilitates sharing people's information and makes it easier to read people's mail, among other measures. President Donald Trump has said Canada had failed to do enough to stem the flow of illicit fentanyl into the U.S., using that as justification for some of his tariffs. This week Trump doubled the tariffs in place on steel and aluminum, prompting calls for Canada to boost retaliatory measures of its own. Late last year Canada pledged C$1.3 billion to beef up its border. As Canada reduces the number of new permanent and temporary residents, its refugee system faces a historic backlog of more than 280,000 cases. This week's bill follows through on some of those border promises as well as on suggestions from some top ministers that Canada would fast-track refusals for some refugee claims. If the bill passes, asylum-seekers who have been in Canada more than one year would not be eligible for refugee hearings. Instead, they would have access to a pre-removal risk assessment, meant to determine whether they would be in danger in their country of origin. According to data published by Canada's Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Department, 30% of pre-removal risk assessments in 2019 for people deemed ineligible for refugee hearings were approved; by contrast, according to Immigration and Refugee Board data, that year 60% of finalized refugee hearings were approved. Asylum-seekers who wait two weeks to file claims after crossing from the U.S. to avoid being turned back under a bilateral agreement would also not get hearings. The bill, which needs to go through multiple readings before the House of Commons votes on it and sends it to the Senate, would also allow the government to "cancel, suspend or vary" immigration documents if deemed in the public interest. Migrant and refugee advocates worry the changes could leave vulnerable people deported to dangerous situations in their home countries without adequate due process. A spokesperson for Canada's Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab said on Wednesday that the government recognizes the conditions in people's home countries may change, but the pre-removal risk assessment will prevent them from being returned to persecution or torture. "The asylum ineligibilities introduced yesterday seek to maintain protection for those fleeing danger while discouraging misuse that bypasses the asylum system's function – which is to protect the vulnerable," the spokesperson wrote in an email. "Canada is reneging on its basic human rights obligations to do individual arbitration," said Migrant Rights Network spokesperson Syed Hussan. "This is teeing up a deportation machine."
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Ukraine's war will be won by soldiers, not speeches
In the old days, you turned on the television to get the news. If the antenna was properly connected, a presenter would deliver what the editors wanted you to hear. Things have changed. Today, modern TVs let us switch quickly between bulletins, letting us cross-examine the news. Then there are mobile phones, tablets, laptops and dozens of social networks filled with statements from world leaders, analysts and bloggers. So, do we really understand the true background of political confrontations any better than we did during the Vietnam War or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Are the motives of presidents and prime ministers more transparent? How much can we trust the public words or social media posts of world leaders? They're often contradictory and inconsistent — politicians seem to forget what they said yesterday and rarely consider what they'll say tomorrow. At least, that's how it looks from Ukraine. Just days before Russia's full-scale invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin denied any plans to attack. In October 2022, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called negotiations with Russia 'impossible'; by this May, he was waiting in Turkey for peace talks with Putin that never happened. Donald Trump dismissed his campaign promise to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours as an 'exaggeration' and 'said in jest.' Such behavior from politicians has become the norm. The European Union and United Kingdom issued theatrical warnings of tougher sanctions against Russia but mostly focused their 17th package on targeting 200 vessels from Moscow's so-called 'shadow fleet.' I stopped reading official statements long ago — they lose meaning before reaching the media. But I had hoped personal talks might carry weight. That's why I awaited the Zelenskyy-Putin meeting in Istanbul and the Trump-Putin call. After a while, news broke that Trump had spoken with Putin. What did they talk about? Reuters reported: peace in Ukraine. Period. Trump called the tone 'excellent' and suggested the Pope as host. Putin muttered about a 'possible memorandum' and 'principles' of settlement. No dates, no names, no clauses — just fog. That's when I realized I wouldn't look to leaders' speeches to understand when this war will end. Before and after their talk, the front lines remained unchanged. Ukrainian defenders repel furious Russian attacks, losing lives but holding their spirit. Air raids continue. Russia recently launched its largest drone attack yet: 273 drones in one night. For some time, Kyiv was quiet — a small miracle in the middle of the war. Early in the morning, well-rested and unusually relaxed, I saw a lone soldier hauling backpacks. He looked like he'd been carrying war on his back. I offered to help him, and he accepted. As we loaded his things into the matte, gray-green pickup truck, I asked how things were, and he said simply, 'Bad. Bloody bad. But we'll win.' His certainty stood in stark contrast to the endless political speculation by pundits reacting to Trump, Putin, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz or U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Or, should I say, it stays. Analysts discuss in chorus, speculating endlessly — but can anyone see the full picture? Is there space for that soldier's quiet 'we'll win'? Putin's position hasn't changed: He demands Russia's right to Crimea and four Ukrainian regions, insisting Ukraine enshrine annexations constitutionally. No negotiation without that. Washington has no leverage. Zelensky, boxed in by Trump's biased arbitration, must accept capitulation — or not. But even if he wanted to, most Ukrainians would reject such a deal. The nation might let go of Crimea and Donbas, lost earlier, but yielding newly occupied regions is a red line. That's why Trump's negotiations are dead on arrival. Pressuring Zelensky is futile. Trump won't or can't pressure Putin. Trump's threat to cut military aid won't change Ukraine's course. The country won't surrender or collapse; it will bleed more, adding to the 'millions of people dead' Trump claims to mourn. A Ukrainian defeat would devastate Ukraine and deal a fatal blow to Trump's credibility. Speculation that Trump might convince Europe to abandon Zelensky is hollow. Europe, left to fend for itself, stands firm, preparing to turn Ukraine into a fortress — a 'steel hedgehog' that no enemy can digest, as Ursula von der Leyen once said. Neither Britain, France, Germany, nor any major power will step back. The war goes on. America's modest arms deliveries continue; Europe slowly scales up military support. The status quo is locked. Russia lacks the strength to break through; Ukraine can't afford to retreat. Trump cannot abandon either side, not after his loud declarations. This deadlock will hold unless one side gains overwhelming strength. Many analysts say time favors Russia: more manpower, weapons and economy. But Ukrainian soldiers see it differently: 'We'll win.' Why do I believe them, despite logic, exhaustion and despair? Because their conviction echoes the resolve of most Ukrainians, including me. We have no right to capitulate. Too many refuse to live ashamed of losing this war. It began as a fierce defense of our land against brutal aggression. It has become a test of endurance, demanding every last reserve of strength, costing hundreds of thousands of lives. It cannot end in disgrace, surrendered ground and raised hands. That's what Trump and Putin don't understand. They see Zelensky as a stubborn obstacle but don't see the millions behind him ready to fight until the enemy bleeds out. With or without Western support, this disgraceful ending will not happen in Ukraine. Kyiv didn't fall in two weeks in 2022 — not because Putin's tanks got 'stuck in the mud,' as Trump says, but because of Ukrainian strategy and heroism. Peace didn't come in 24 hours, didn't come from Istanbul negotiations and won't come from phone calls between Washington and Moscow. The war won't end because the White House calls it a 'bloodbath' or the Kremlin says 'Russia is for a peaceful settlement.' War's winners and losers are decided on the battlefield. More than three years in, what do we see? Russia, which Trump falsely called '20 times' the size of Ukraine, spends months taking yards of ground, littering the soil with corpses. Yes, numbers matter, but conviction matters more. There was unwavering conviction in that soldier's words. That's why I believe him and not politicians who imagine they hold all the cards. The battlefield is not a gaming table. The real winner will wear military camouflage, sweaty and bloody, with the yellow and blue emblem of Ukraine, existing as long as soldiers believe in victory. Sergey Maidukov is a Ukrainian author with a particular focus on cultural and political dynamics in post-Soviet space. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House taps special ops vet for key Latin America post, sources say
By Gram Slattery WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The White House has tapped a career special forces operative with experience in counterterrorism operations to oversee Latin America policy at the National Security Council, two U.S. officials said. The appointment of retired Air Force commander Michael Jensen as senior director of Western Hemisphere affairs at the NSC follows President Donald Trump publicly floating the idea of sending troops into Mexico to battle drug cartels. In February, the Trump administration designated six Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, a move that some Democrats and analysts believe could serve as a legal pretext for U.S. military action in Mexico or other foreign countries. Jensen, who served in multiple special tactics groups over the course of more than two decades in the Air Force, had been nominated in February to serve as assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict. The administration pulled that nomination in mid-May, according to a congressional notice that did not give a reason. Jensen has no obvious Latin America policy experience, according to his LinkedIn profile and publicly available documents. A 2008 article written by an Air Force public affairs officer said Jensen helped manage a "high-value target hunt" in Afghanistan, during which he "guided 31 close air support and surveillance aircraft during a 5-1/2 hour mission, which disrupted al-Qaeda operations." CBS reported in April that Jensen was a candidate for the post, though Jensen has only stepped into the position in recent days amid a broad shake-up at the NSC, said the U.S. officials, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media. The White House did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Jensen, who also serves as a special assistant to the president in his new role. TROOPS TO FIGHT CARTELS Trump said on the campaign trail that he might send troops to Mexico to battle drug cartels. During the final year of his 2017-2021 presidency, he privately floated the idea of launching missiles into Mexico, according to a memoir by his second defense secretary, Mark Esper. In May, Trump said he had offered to send U.S. troops to Mexico to help Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum combat drug trafficking, an offer that she rebuffed. Jensen's appointment comes at a fraught time for the NSC, which helps coordinate U.S. foreign policy across a large number of agencies. In late May, dozens of staffers were cut in a purge, the latest and most dramatic in a series of cuts that started in March. Mike Waltz, the first national security adviser, was replaced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in early May and Rubio now holds the top posts at both the NSC and the State Department. In recent days, remaining NSC staffers have been told they will be more involved in implementing - rather than making - policy, according to several people briefed on conversations with top White House officials. Several foreign missions, including those of major U.S. allies, have lost their counterparts at the NSC and are struggling to stay in close contact with the Trump administration, according to several foreign diplomats. Still, the NSC has in recent days made some initial move to fill staffing gaps, according to three U.S. officials, with White House officials soliciting resumes from officials elsewhere in government. Rubio has publicly urged the U.S. national security and diplomatic communities to renew their focus on Latin America, as the Trump administration attempts to crack down on narcotics trafficking and illegal immigration.
