Erin Patterson speaks at murder trial
Samantha Donovan: In a development that surprised some observers, accused triple murderer Erin Paterson has been called to give evidence at her Supreme Court trial in regional Victoria. Ms Patterson is accused of deliberately poisoning her husband's parents, uncle and aunt with a meal of beef wellington containing death cap mushrooms. Only one of her lunch guests survived. Ms Patterson has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and one of attempted murder. Our reporter Kathleen O'Connor is at the trial in Morwell. Kathleen, the defence I understand began by asking Ms Patterson a series of questions about her relationship with her now estranged husband Simon Paterson. What did the court hear?
Kathleen O'Connor: Yeah, that's right, Sam. Aside from the text messages read to the court and the police interview played to the jury last week, this is the first time we're actually hearing from Erin Patterson. She began by telling the jury about the relationship between her and her estranged husband Simon and the relationship he has with his children. She went into how they first met at the council in the Melbourne area and how they travelled a lot, but after a while she wanted to lay down roots somewhere and start a family. Erin Patterson says when her and Simon first met she was originally an atheist and after going to church with Simon and his family she converted to Christianity. Later on in their relationship she described her dealings with Simon Paterson as functional. Erin Patterson telling the court when the pair separated a number of times throughout their relationship she said even though our relationship was struggling it was really important for both of us to cooperate because our child was the priority. Erin Patterson described to the jury that if her and Simon had any problems at all it was that they couldn't communicate well and when they disagreed with something they both just felt hurt and they didn't know how to resolve it.
Samantha Donovan: Her barrister then asked Erin Patterson about her relationship with her in-laws Don and Gail Patterson. What did she tell the jury?
Kathleen O'Connor: Erin Patterson talked about how she had a good relationship with Simon's parents in the beginning and she used to visit them regularly. She told the court she was often invited for a meal with them and her husband Simon Paterson and sometimes he wasn't even there. She explained to the jury that her mother-in-law Gail Paterson was really supportive, gentle and patient with her particularly after the birth of her first child. She was very close with his family often coming to visit the couple when they were living in Perth temporarily. Ian Wilkinson's son and Simon's cousin even walking her down the aisle at her wedding. However in 2023, the same year when the lunch took place, she told the court I'd felt for some months that her relationship between the wider Patterson family was more distant particularly with Simon's parents Don and Gail. She became concerned that Simon didn't want her to be involved in the family as much and she said she wasn't invited to as many things.
Samantha Donovan: And Kathleen, what was Erin Patterson's attitude, her demeanour like when she was giving evidence today?
Kathleen O'Connor: She became quite emotional Sam at times particularly talking about the birth of her child when responding to her defence lawyer Colin Mandy SC's questions. Her eyes were locked on him the entire time. She only paused a few times when questions were being asked just really taking her time to answer each question.
Samantha Donovan: And the lead investigator from the Victoria Police Homicide Squad also wrapped up his evidence today. What did he tell the court that was of significance this morning?
Kathleen O'Connor: Detective leading senior constable from the Homicide Squad Stephen Eppingstall was questioned for most of the morning as the prosecution's final witness. This morning defence lawyer Colin Mandy SC questioned him about Erin Paterson's use of mobile phones after the prosecution alleges a number of factory resets were made on that phone that was seized by police on the day that they searched her property in Leongatha. And that phone and SIM card she actually gave to police to help with their investigation wasn't the main phone that Ms Patterson used to regularly contact her family and friends. Barrister Colin Mandy SC presented a diagram to the jury to demonstrate that it was regular practice that the SIM cards she used were shifted into several different phones in the years before the lunch. And the factory reset may not have been done intentionally. The prosecution has formally closed its case now Sam.
Samantha Donovan: Our reporter Kathleen O'Connor at the Erin Patterson trial in Morwell in Victoria.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
16 minutes ago
- ABC News
Magistrate in Hillcrest jumping castle case to hand down decision
A chapter of the Hillcrest Primary School tragedy may end today, with Magistrate Robert Webster set to hand down his decision in the criminal case, but the story is far from over. It is more than six months since the Devonport Magistrates Court heard evidence in the case against Rosemary Anne Gamble, who is charged with failing in her work health and safety duty over the tragedy on December 16, 2021. Students Zane Mellor, Peter Dodt, Jalailah Jayne-Maree Jones, Addison Stewart, Jye Sheehan, and Chace Harrison died, and three of their classmates were seriously injured when a freak wind tossed a jumping castle across their primary school oval in Devonport in north-west Tasmania. Ms Gamble pleaded not guilty to the charge ahead of a two-week hearing in November. In February, the court heard closing statements from the prosecution and defence lawyers. Some of the victims' family members sat through each day of the hearing, clutching pillows bearing their children's faces and wearing T-shirts printed with their photos. The courtroom was often a scene of tension and heightened emotions as parents' grief, anger and frustration came to the fore. The distressing details and timeline of the tragedy were examined in detail throughout the two-week hearing. The court heard Ms Gamble owned Taz-Zorb, a business that dealt in inflatable amusement devices, and was contracted by the Hillcrest Primary School for its end-of-school-year celebrations on the day of the tragedy. That morning, she and her partner Robert Monte set up their operation on the school's oval, and students began queuing for their turn on the couple's crayon-themed jumping castle. At about 10am, a fierce wind, described by some witnesses as a "mini tornado" and by a weather expert as a "dust devil", swept through the school grounds with devastating effect. It was an otherwise calm and sunny day, and the court heard the couple had used 30cm pegs at four of the castle's eight anchor points to tether it to the ground. The pegs almost immediately failed when the dust devil struck, lifting the castle high into the air. Seven children were inside the castle when it was thrown across the oval, and five of them did not survive their resulting injuries. Another child was waiting in line and died after being struck in the head by the airborne jumping castle blower. The charge alleged Ms Gamble failed to comply with her duty "in a way that exposed the children to a risk of death or serious injury". Crown prosecutor Madeleine Wilson said Ms Gamble failed in several ways to comply with her duty, including by properly failing to anchor the castle to the ground. The Crown also said Ms Gamble had failed to properly train herself or her staff in the proper, safe inflation and operation of the jumping castle. Mr Monte told the court they watched YouTube and taught themselves how to operate the jumping castle after buying it in 2015. "You're f***ing joking," a father said as he stormed out of court during Mr Monte's evidence. Mechanical engineer Roderick McDonald told the court that if star pickets, which were available on the day, had been used at all eight anchor points, the castle would have stayed on the ground. But defence lawyer Chris Dockray SC said it was the defence case that nothing Ms Gamble could have done would have prevented the tragedy on that day, as the dust devil was a freakish and unpredictable weather event. That position was backed in by defence expert witness Professor David Eager from the University of Technology Sydney. "If you hadn't held the event, it wouldn't have happened," he said. During submissions in February, Mr Dockray also targeted Chinese company East Inflatables, the manufacturer of the jumping castle. He said it was East Inflatables' business model to "prey upon people like Ms Gamble" to sell jumping castles. Even if Magistrate Robert Webster does find Ms Gamble guilty, he cannot sentence her to a prison term. The maximum penalty for a category two offence under the Work Health and Safety Act is a $1.5 million fine for a corporation, and a $300,000 fine for an individual conducting a business. If Ms Gamble is found not guilty, she will simply be free to go. But whatever the result, the victims' families will likely soon return to back in court as a coronial inquest is slated to begin once the criminal proceedings conclude. The families also launched a civil class action against the state of Tasmania and Ms Gamble in December last year on the third anniversary of the tragedy. The class action was filed in the Supreme Court of Tasmania by the law firm Maurice Blackburn and alleges the state, as the school's operator, and Taz-Zorb had a duty of care and failed to take reasonable precautions to ensure the children's safety. At the time, principal lawyer Dimi Loannou said the families' grief was a daily experience. "Nothing will erase the suffering or bring back their lost children," she said.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Anthony Albanese faces a novel challenge in Sussan Ley
Anthony Albanese loves a trophy, especially a human one. He prides himself on his various "captain's pick" candidates — good campaigners he has steered into seats. Way back in the Gillard days, he was key in persuading discontented Liberal Peter Slipper to defect. Slipper became an independent and Labor's speaker. The exercise helped the government's numbers, but the bold play didn't end well for Labor or for Slipper. The government was tarnished, and Slipper, relentlessly pursued by the Coalition and mired in controversy, eventually had to quit the speakership. The affair did produce Julia Gillard's famous misogyny speech, however. Now Albanese has another gee-whiz prize — Western Australian Senator Dorinda Cox, who has defected from the Greens. Cox, after being defeated in a bid for Greens deputy leader, approached Labor and the PM drove her course to being accepted into the party. The manoeuvre makes a marginal but insignificant difference to Senate numbers — Labor will still need the Greens to pass legislation opposed by the Coalition. Taking in Cox is a risk, and some in Labor are looking at it askance. The prime minister's embrace of Cox contradicts Labor's argument when its Western Australian senator Fatima Payman defected to become an independent. It said then hers was a Labor seat and she should therefore resign. But this wouldn't be the first time expediency trumped consistency in politics. Cox, who is Indigenous and was spokesperson for First Nations and resources in the last parliament, has been a fierce critic of the extending the North West Shelf gas project, which the government has just announced. Albanese says he is confident she "understands that being a member of the Labor Party means that she will support positions that are made by the Labor Party". She has also faced allegations of treating staff badly. Labor discounts the claims against her, saying they are overblown and a product of Greens factionalism and toxicity. Certainly, she was given a tough time by the hard-left faction represented by deputy leader Mehreen Faruqi. Labor would be wise to ensure Cox feels supported in her new party home. Albanese perhaps calculates that the worst that can happen is there's a blow up and she defects to the crossbench. Labor could shrug and say, she was never really one of us. Snatching a senator from the Greens is particularly satisfying to Albanese because he hates the party so much. Last term, lower house Greens MP Max Chandler-Mather (defeated at the election) really got under his skin. More generally, the Greens held up important legislation, most notably on housing. In the new Senate, Labor will need only the Greens to pass legislation opposed by the Coalition. How new Greens leader Larissa Waters — who replaced Adam Bandt after he lost his seat — handles the party's relationship with the government will be crucial for the more contentious parts of Labor's legislative program. The usually low-key Waters will be under a lot of pressure. The Greens had a bad election, losing three lower house seats. Now they have lost a senator at the start of Waters's watch. Waters conceded on the Serious Danger podcast in late May that Labor had successfully run the narrative of the Greens as blockers. "So, I do think we're going to need to be quite deft in how we handle balance of power in this term, […] People want us to be constructive. They don't just want us to roll over and tick off on any old shit. They want meaningful reforms." Waters will want to pick her fights carefully and also find ways of pursuing the Greens' agenda where the party co-operates. The first deal is likely to be on the government's legislation to increase the tax on those with large superannuation balances, which contains the controversial provision to tax unrealised capital gains. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and her team will confront some of the same problems as the Greens — when to oppose and when to seek to negotiate with the government. For his part, Albanese will have a novel challenge with Ley — what stance to adopt against the first female opposition leader, especially but not only in parliamentary clashes. After facing two alpha-male Liberal leaders, Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton, a new approach will obviously be necessary. As one Labor man succinctly puts it, "Labor can't monster a woman". There can be no repeat of Albanese, a frontbencher a decade ago in the Shorten opposition, interjecting to urge a female colleague engaged in a stoush with Ley to "smash her". For Ley, trying to deal with the Liberals' multiple difficulties in attracting women voters and candidates must be high on her agenda. Former Liberal federal president Alan Stockdale, one of the three-person group currently running the NSW division of the party, showed himself part of the problem when this week he told the NSW Liberal Women's Council, "The women in this party are so assertive now that we may need some special rules for men to get them pre-selected." Stockdale said later he was being "light-hearted". Tone deaf might be a better term. Ley jumped on him. "There is nothing wrong with being an assertive woman. In fact, I encourage assertive women to join the Liberal Party." The jury is out on whether Ley will be able to make any sort of fist of her near-impossible job. But in the short time she's been leader, she has shown she is willing to be assertive. She emerged from the brief split in the Coalition looking much steadier than Nationals leader David Littleproud, even though she had to persuade her party room to accept the minor party's policy demands. In her frontbench reshuffle, she was willing to wear the inevitable criticism that came with dropping a couple of senior women who had under-performed. As deputy leader, Ley adjusted her style a while before the election, toning down the aggression and sometimes wild attacks, that had characterised her performance earlier in the term. A Liberal source said she found her "line and length". As leader, she will have others, notably deputy Ted O'Brien, to do the head-kicking, giving her room to attempt to develop a positive political persona. Labor leaned into attacking Dutton — never afraid to name him. With Ley, Albanese might adopt the Bob Carr approach of avoiding using his opponent's name. At least until he finds his line and length in dealing with her. Michelle Grattan is a professorial fellow at the University of Canberra and chief political correspondent at The Conversation, where this article first appeared.
Perth Now
3 hours ago
- Perth Now
Mushroom cook facing further questions in murder trial
Prosecutors will continue questioning mushroom cook Erin Patterson as she returns for a fifth day in the witness box at her triple murder trial. The 50-year-old mother admitted to a number of lies to police on Thursday, as she nears the end of week six on trial before a Supreme Court jury in regional Victoria. Patterson has pleaded not guilty to the murder of her former in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, 70, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson, 66, along with the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson. She denies deliberately poisoning her four lunch guests on July 29, 2023 by serving them death cap mushroom-laced beef Wellingtons. Patterson admitted to 14 jurors on Thursday that she lied in her police interview about not owning a dehydrator and having never foraged for wild mushrooms. She said she had a "stupid knee-jerk reaction to just dig deeper and keep lying" after being informed two lunch guests had died. "I was just scared, but I shouldn't have done it," she told the jury. The prosecution honed in on Patterson's lies during cross-examination, accusing her of lying about dehydrating mushrooms as she knew telling police the truth could implicate her in the toxic lunch. "I agree that I lied because I was afraid I would be held responsible," Patterson said. She also admitted she told Gail and Don Patterson she had a lump in her arm and was going to hospital to get it tested, which was untrue. "They made me feel loved and cared for in the way that they were asking about my health and I didn't want that to stop, so I just kept going," she said. Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC accused her of using a "so-called cancer diagnosis" to get her guests to come over for lunch. "I suggest that you never thought you would have to account for this lie about having cancer because you thought that the lunch guests would die?" the prosecutor asked. "That's not true," Patterson replied. Patterson will return for a second day of cross-examination on Friday as the trial continues.
