Erin Patterson trial: Mushroom cook's answer to death cap question

Alleged poisoner Erin Patterson has finished giving evidence for the week at her triple-murder trial after responding 'depends' when questioned in an Australian court if she had an interest in death cap mushrooms.
Patterson, 50, returned to the witness box on Friday for her fifth day giving evidence at her

Hashtags

#Australian

#ErinPatterson

#Patterson

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Five revealing moments from Erin Patterson's cross-examination

1News

13 hours ago

1News

Five revealing moments from Erin Patterson's cross-examination

The prosecution has stepped up its questioning of Erin Patterson - the Victorian woman accused of killing three people and attempting to kill a fourth by serving them a meal laced with poisonous mushrooms. After days of giving evidence in her own defence, Patterson has now faced cross-examination from prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC, who has challenged her on everything from deleted photos and cancer claims to the exact wording of her emoji use in private messages. Australia Correspondent Aziz Al Sa'afin explains some of the biggest moments from the cross-examination so far. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT 1. 'You knew they were death cap mushrooms' Nanette Rogers began by suggesting Patterson knew she had cooked with death cap mushrooms and deliberately got rid of the evidence. 'You knew that they were death cap mushrooms that you'd been dehydrating, correct?' 'No, I didn't know that,' Patterson replied. The prosecution then accused her of deliberately disposing of the food dehydrator to cover her tracks. 'You were very keen to dispose of any evidence that might connect you with the possession of death cap mushrooms?' 'No, I didn't,' Patterson said again. ADVERTISEMENT (Source: 1News) 2. Photos allegedly show mushrooms being weighed Rogers showed the jury a series of images from Patterson's phone showing sliced mushrooms on a dehydrator tray, balanced on kitchen scales in her home. Expert evidence has previously suggested the mushrooms pictured were consistent with Amanita phalloides - the deadly species known as death caps. 'I suggest you were weighing these mushrooms so you could calculate the weight required for... a fatal dose,' Rogers said. 'I disagree,' Patterson replied. She also denied claims that she foraged those mushrooms after seeing a post online about local sightings on the iNaturalist website. ADVERTISEMENT 3. Internet searches raise questions about cancer claim The prosecution questioned Patterson over her claim to her lunch guests that she had cancer - a lie she now says was a cover for planned weight-loss surgery. Court documents showed images and search results related to ovarian and brain cancer stored on Patterson's devices. 'I suggest this information from the internet would allow you to tell a more convincing lie,' Rogers said. 'That's theoretically true, but it's not what I did,' Patterson replied. She said she'd worried about her health in late 2021 and early 2022, but denied conducting searches in 2023 to support a fabricated illness. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT 4. Emoji use and 'eyerolls' spark courtroom debate The court was also shown Facebook messages Patterson sent to friends, in which she referenced her in-laws and used eye-roll and neutral-face emojis when talking about their religious advice. Rogers argued the tone was mocking. Patterson disagreed. 'There's a better eyeroll emoji than these,' Patterson said. 'I can't see anything about eyes rolling in there. I wasn't mocking, I was frustrated.' 5. Prosecution questions Patterson's use of the word 'panicked' and 'foraging' Patterson had previously told the court she panicked in the days after the fatal lunch, which led her to lie and destroy evidence. But Rogers challenged this, suggesting Patterson was not reacting emotionally, but acting to avoid detection. ADVERTISEMENT 'Can you please alert me to the answer that I gave where I said I panicked when I learnt that everyone was unwell?' Patterson asked during one exchange. Rogers paused before continuing: 'Certainly.' In a continued moment of back-and-forth, Rogers questioned Patterson on her use of other language - specifically whether she understood what 'mushrooming' meant. Patterson replied: 'I think it could mean a couple of things… foraging, but also other uses of mushrooms that are not eating.' When asked what she would call picking mushrooms for food, she said: 'Pick and eat.' She maintained she never used the word 'mushrooming' and would have said 'foraged' if that's what she meant. Patterson denies the charges and the trial continues next week. ADVERTISEMENT Aziz Al Sa'afin looks at the key questions in the trial Aziz Al Sa'afin answers your most asked questions about the mushroom trial (Source: 1News) Who is Erin Patterson and what is this trial about? Erin Patterson is a 50-year-old woman from Leongatha, Victoria, who is accused of murdering her former in-laws Don and Gail Patterson and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson. She is also charged with the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson, a local pastor who survived the same meal. All four guests became seriously ill after eating a beef wellington lunch prepared at Patterson's home in July 2023. What is she accused of doing? Prosecutors allege that Patterson used death cap mushrooms - one of the most poisonous fungi in the world - in the meal she served her guests. The Crown claims she knowingly poisoned them. The Defence says it was a tragic accident and Patterson has pleaded not guilty to all charges. What are death cap mushrooms? ADVERTISEMENT Death cap mushrooms (Amanita phalloides) are deadly fungi that can be easily mistaken for edible varieties. Even a small amount can cause liver failure or death. They are not typically sold in stores and are often found in the wild. Cooking them does not neutralise their toxicity. What has Erin Patterson said in court? She has told the jury that she did not mean to harm anyone and believes the poisoning was a tragic accident. She admitted to lying in a police interview about foraging mushrooms and using a food dehydrator, which she later dumped. She said she panicked and was scared she'd be blamed. Why does she say she lied to police? Patterson has admitted to lying about key details during her initial police interview. She said she was overwhelmed and frightened, particularly after learning two of her guests had died. She told the court: 'It was a stupid kneejerk reaction… I was scared, but I shouldn't have done it.' What does the prosecution say? The prosecution has accused Patterson of deliberately cooking with death cap mushrooms and trying to cover her tracks. They've pointed to deleted photos, dumped kitchen equipment, and online searches they allege were used to create a convincing cover story, including a lie about having cancer. ADVERTISEMENT What has she said about the cancer claim? Patterson admitted lying to her lunch guests about having cancer. She told the court she said it to cover up a planned weight-loss surgery and described feeling ashamed of her body. The prosecution says she researched cancer online to make her story more believable. Patterson denies that. Why has this trial received so much attention? The unusual and shocking nature of the case - involving a homemade meal, rare poisonous mushrooms, and a family tragedy - has made headlines around the world. The fact that Patterson is giving evidence in her own defence is also highly unusual in a murder trial. True-crime podcasters and filmmakers have descended on the town of Morwell to cover this trial only adding to the hype. What does the jury have to decide? The jury must decide whether Erin Patterson is guilty of murder or attempted murder beyond reasonable doubt. This means they must be sure of her guilt based on the evidence presented in order to return a guilty verdict. In a Victorian criminal trial, the jury's verdict must be unanimous - all 12 jurors must agree. They will be pushed until they can reach a unanimous verdict of guilty or not guilty. In the rare instance they can't, the judge may declare a hung jury, which could lead to a retrial. What if Erin Patterson is found guilty? ADVERTISEMENT If found guilty of murder, Patterson faces a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The judge would determine her sentence at a later date. What happens if Erin Patterson is found not guilty? If Patterson is found not guilty, she will be acquitted of the charges and released from custody. An acquittal means the jury was not satisfied of her guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the legal threshold for conviction was not met. What happens next? The trial is ongoing and has now lasted for six weeks. Cross-examination is underway, and Patterson is expected to remain on the stand into next week. Closing arguments will follow, then final instructions from the judge before the jury deliberates. The trial could stretch into late June.

RNZ News

a day ago

RNZ News

Triple murder accused takes stand in poisonous mushroom trial

A handout sketch received from the Supreme Court of Victoria shows Erin Patterson, an Australian woman accused of murdering three people with a toxic mushroom-laced beef Wellington. Photo: AFP / PAUL TYQUIN The Australian trial involving death cap mushrooms in a beef wellington has captured the world. This week triple murder accused Erin Patterson took the stand for the first time. The prosecution says she deliberately went searching for poisonous mushrooms which she cooked and served to her four in-laws. Her defence team says it was a terrible accident. The ABC's Kathleen O'Connor has been covering events this week and speaks to Susie from Melbourne.

NZ Herald

2 days ago

NZ Herald