‘Calculated deceptions' and ‘ridiculous' propositions: what the Erin Patterson jury heard in the final week of her triple-murder trial

The Guardian

4 hours ago

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.