logo
New details emerge about what Erin Patterson did with the $2million she inherited at the time she allegedly served a poison mushroom lunch

New details emerge about what Erin Patterson did with the $2million she inherited at the time she allegedly served a poison mushroom lunch

Daily Mail​01-05-2025

Erin Patterson dished out hundreds of thousands of dollars in discounted home loans to the family of her estranged husband leading up to the deadly lunch that claimed the lives of three.
The revelations came as Simon Patterson was cross examined by his ex-wife's barrister Colin Mandy SC at the Supreme Court of Victoria sitting in the Latrobe Valley.
Patterson, 50, is accused of killing her former in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson, with death cap mushrooms served in a pastry dish during a lunch at her Leongatha home on July 29, 2023.
Pastor Ian Wilkinson was the only attendee to survive the lunch, with Patterson also charged with attempted murder over his alleged poisoning.
It was the first time Simon had laid eyes on his wife in person since her arrest over the alleged murder of his parents and aunt.
The court heard Patterson had effectively gifted near interest free loans to three of Simon's siblings to purchase homes in and around Melbourne.
The money had come largely from the $2million in inheritances Patterson had received following the deaths of her mother and grandmother.
The jury heard that Simon's brother Matt and wife Tanya received about $400,000 to build their house in Officer in Melbourne's south-east.
His brother Nathan and wife Merryn also pocketed hundreds of thousands to buy a home while his sister Anna and husband Josh borrowed money for a home in Blackburn.
'And the terms of those loans were that there was no interest paid on them other than indexation to inflation?' Mr Mandy asked.
'That's right,' Simon responded.
The court heard the loans came with the added bonus of being paid off when and how the recipients wanted.
'They were arranged so that there was no legal hold, I guess, to force them to pay the money back, but the arrangements were that - the intention was that they be paid back at the same kind of amounts that they'd be paying back a mortgage if it was a mortgage,' Simon said.
When the couple split, the remaining loans split between them with Simon taking over collections from Anna while Erin took on Matt.
Dressed in pink, Patterson showed no emotion as her estranged husband gave evidence throughout Thursday.
The pair locked eyes briefly before Patterson began to give his evidence.
Simon had been invited to the deadly lunch but pulled out the night before.
The jury has already heard three attempted murder charges relating to him were withdrawn last week.
Patterson has pleaded not guilty to three counts of murder and one of attempted murder.
Simon outlined how he had been invited to the fateful lunch and the angry response he received from his estranged wife when he declined.
'I've spent many hours this week preparing lunch for tomorrow, which has been exhausting in light of the issues I'm facing and spent a small fortune on Beef eye Fillet to make Beef Wellingtons because I wanted it to be a special meal, as I may not be able to host a lunch like this again for some time,' she texted Simon.
'It's important to me that you're all there tomorrow, and that I can have the conversations that I need to have. I hope you'll change your mind. Your parents, Heather and Ian, are coming at 12.30, and I hope you'll change your mind. Your parents, Heather and Ian, are coming at 12.30, and I hope to see you there.'
Simon spent the early part of Thursday answering questions about his family and how he came to meet and then separate from his wife.
He called his estranged wife 'witty and quite intelligent' before telling the court she had held a position as an air-traffic controller at Melbourne Airport in Tullamarine.
He explained how Patterson had enjoyed educating herself, studying pet science, law and science.
When asked if Patterson liked to invite people over to the family home, Simon said it was 'very rare'.
Simon became emotional when asked about the breakdown of his relationship, asking for tissues and struggling to answer questions.
'It's good to be friends with the person you're married too ... it was really important to me that, sorry can I have some tissues please,' he said.
Asked for a break, Simon resisted.
'Did you continue to care for her,' Dr Rogers asked.
'Yes,' he replied.
Simon claimed while the couple remained friendly during separation, things changed when he made the decision to change his relationship status on his tax return.
He had been dropping off the kids at Patterson's Leongatha home when she allegedly came out and asked to have a chat.
The jury heard Patterson jumped in the passenger side of Simon's car.
'She discovered that my tax return for the previous year for the first time noted we were separated,' Simon told the court.
Patterson told him the move would impact the family tax benefit the couple had previously enjoyed and she was obliged to now claim child support.
'She was upset about it,' Simon said.
On July 16, during a church service, Patterson allegedly asked her in-laws over for lunch, the court heard previously.
She also asked Simon to attend, despite the couple's relationship being on the decline.
The court heard the purpose of the lunch was to discuss 'medical issues' and how 'to break it to the kids'.
Those issues were Patterson's false claims that she had ovarian cancer.
Patterson was insistent she did not want the kids to attend and Simon agreed to attend the lunch.
The court heard each of Patterson's guests were initially confused about the invitation and wondered what the purpose was.
Simon pulled out at last minute because he 'felt uncomfortable' - a move which allegedly annoyed his estranged wife.
Patterson texted 'she was disappointed' as she'd put in a lot of effort for the 'special meal'.
The court heard Patterson told Simon it was important everyone attended.
In opening the prosecution case, Dr Nanette Rogers claimed that, while separated, Patterson and Simon had initially enjoyed a 'friendly relationship'.
Despite separating in 2015, Simon had remained hopeful they would reunite someday, Dr Rogers said.
The pair had communicated regularly via the Signal messaging app up until 2022 when Simon noticed a change.
Dr Rogers told the jury Patterson expressed concern when Simon listed himself as separated on his tax return.
She also wanted child support and the school fees paid.
The court heard Patterson changed the children's school without consulting Simon.
In closing her opening address on Wednesday, Dr Rogers told the jury a motive was not necessary for members to convict Patterson and they would not be given one.
'Motive is not something that has to be proven by the prosecution,' Dr Rogers said.
'The prosecution will not be suggesting that there was a particular motive to do what she did.'
Instead, Dr Rogers told the jury that by the end of the trial they would be convinced Patterson lured her victims to lunch with false claims she had cancer before deliberately serving them mini beef Wellingtons laced with death cap mushrooms.
She told the jury it could be convinced Patterson had not eaten any of the poisonous meal, pretended to be sick and never fed her children any of the leftovers containing the death cap mushrooms.
Patterson's barrister Colin Mandy, SC suggested motive was an important factor in the case.
'Did she have a motive to kill these four family members?' he said. 'That issue of intention is the critical issue in this trial.
'Did she intend to kill these four people? That's the issue.
'We say she didn't do it deliberately ... the defence case is what happened was a tragedy. A terrible accident.'
The trial continues.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates: Defence gives closing arguments as murder trial enters final days
Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates: Defence gives closing arguments as murder trial enters final days

Daily Mail​

time17-06-2025

  • Daily Mail​

Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates: Defence gives closing arguments as murder trial enters final days

Dr Rogers told the jury yesterday it was 'in the best possible position' to determine the issues in this case which they should regard as a 'jigsaw puzzle'. 'And as the pieces were put together, the picture starts to become clear,' he said. Dr Rogers (pictured) said the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt Patterson was guilty. 'You must not feel sorry for the accused in the position she's facing these criminal charges,' she said. 'You might not understand it.' Dr Rogers argued there was no reasonable alternative than that Patterson deliberately killed her lunch guests. 'She's told lies upon lies because she knew the truth would implicate her,' she said. Dr Rogers said Patterson's 'fifth deception' was to the jury itself. The prosecutor said Patterson constructed a narrative in the witness box. Dr Rogers also pointed to the fact that she claimed even her own children were wrong and listed all the key elements she claimed pointed to Patterson's guilt. She said the jury should be satisfied Patterson intended to kill each of her lunch guests.

'Mushroom killer' used meal as 'sinister deception to kill husband's relatives'
'Mushroom killer' used meal as 'sinister deception to kill husband's relatives'

Metro

time16-06-2025

  • Metro

'Mushroom killer' used meal as 'sinister deception to kill husband's relatives'

An Australian woman accused of murdering her estranged husband's relatives by lacing their food with toxic mushrooms staged the meal as a 'sinister deception', a court has heard. Erin Patterson is accused of killing her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson, in July 2023. She is also charged with the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband, who was hospitalised along with the other victims after eating a beef Wellington at Patterson's home in Leongatha, Victoria. Prosecuors say Patterson foraged poisonous death cap mushrooms some time before, dehydrated them, and used them in the mushroom 'duxelle' that sits between the beef and the pastry. She denies the charges, with her defence saying the poisonings were a 'terrible accident'. Jurors today heard the start of the closing arguments in the ongoing trial, which is now in its eighth week. Nanette Rogers, for the prosecution, accused Patterson of cooking up four lies leading to her guests' demise. First, Rogers said, Patterson fabricated a cancer diagnosis as a prexext to get them to have lunch with her. Second, she allegedly served them poisonous meals while eating a portion in front of them that had no traces of the mushroom. The court was previously told Patterson cooked individual beef Wellingtons instead of a single large dish. She claimed this was only because she couldn't source a single 'log' of fillet, while prosecutors argued it was a deliberate ploy to ensure she controlled who was eating what. It was said that Ms Wilkinson noticed her host eating from a 'noticeably different' plate to the rest of the table, relaying her concern to Patterson's estranged husband after she started falling unwell. Third, Rogers said, Patterson allegedly lied that the food also made her sick in order to avoid suspicion. The court heard she went to hospital the day after her guests were admitted and said she felt unwell but discharged herself without treatment. Finally, prosecutors say Patterson attempted a cover-up of the incident by sending police on a 'wild goose chase' to find the source of the poisonous mushrooms. More Trending She allegedly told health authorities she used dried mushrooms bought from an Asian grocer, telling police she had been 'very helpful' in doing so. The court also heard that a week after the meal she dumped a food dehydrator allegedly used to dry the death caps used in the dish. Patterson admitted dumping the appliance but claimed she 'panicked' after her estranged husband allegedly accused her of using it to poison his parents. The court will next hear closing arguments from her defence before the jury retires to deliberate. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Man who killed schoolboy, 14, with samurai sword 're-enacted attack in hospital' MORE: Nursery worker Roksana Lecka found guilty of punching and kicking children while addicted to cannabis MORE: Ex-Tory MP pleads not guilty to alleged sexual assaults at London's Groucho club

Nine key questions could decide fate of beef Wellington mushroom 'poisoner'
Nine key questions could decide fate of beef Wellington mushroom 'poisoner'

Daily Mirror

time14-06-2025

  • Daily Mirror

Nine key questions could decide fate of beef Wellington mushroom 'poisoner'

Erin Patterson has been accused of intentionally poisoning several family members and her eight-day cross-examination in the murder trial has come to an end The world has been gripped by the murder trial of an Australian woman that came after several people died after eating a homemade beef Wellington that is said to have contained poisonous death cap mushrooms. Erin Patterson denies intentionally poisoning three relatives and attempting to kill a fourth by serving them a meal containing toxic death cap mushrooms at her home in Victoria on July 29, 2023. Prosecutors have alleged she deliberately included the poisonous mushrooms in the meal, but her defence insists it was a tragic accident - saying Patterson may have accidentally included mushrooms she had foraged herself. ‌ ‌ Within a week of the meal, three of the guests had died and the fourth was in hospital. Patterson, 50, was questioned by police shortly after the deaths and she was arrested around a month later. Her alleged victims were her in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, both aged 70, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson, 66. Ian Wilkinson, the uncle of Patterson's estranged husband, also fell seriously ill but survived after weeks of treatment. These are the nine key questions that could determine how the jury vote. Where were the toxic mushrooms from? Both the prosecution and defence have accepted the potentially deadly death cap mushrooms were in the beef wellington. During the initial police investigation, Patterson denied being a forager and her children told cops they had never seen her pick mushrooms. This completely shifted in the witness box as Patterson claimed that was untrue and said she had picked wild mushrooms since the 2020 Covid lockdown. Her lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, asked if she accepted that the beef Wellington pastries she had served to her lunch guests in 2023 contained death caps. "Now I think there was a possibility there were foraged ones in there," she replied. ‌ How did the mushrooms get into the dish? Prosecutor Nanette Rogers told the court how Patterson had posted in Facebook groups about using a food dehydrator to reduce the size of mushrooms to use in cooking. Patterson posted that she had been "hiding powdered mushrooms in everything". The jury was also shown a CCTV photo showing Erin Patterson at her local tip on August 2 - days after the fatal meal. Among the things she was seen disposing of was a large black box. When inspected a couple of days later, a staff member found a black Sunbeam dehydrator, Nanette Rogers says. Fingerprints were found on the dehydrator and compared to Ms Patterson's, Dr Rogers says - and they matched. It also tested positive for death cap mushrooms, the jury was told. ‌ Did she secretly hate her in-laws? Prosecutors have not identified a "particular" motive in this case but the court heard about issues Patterson faced with her ex-husband Simon's family. The couple were married in 2007 and separated in 2015 but initially had a close relationship even after they split. This changed in 2022 when Simon described himself as "single" on a tax return and affected her ability to claim tax breaks. Patterson asked her in-laws to get involved and they were reluctant to, which led to arguments between them. She posted a series of raging posts on Facebook around that time including: "I'm sick of this s**t. I want nothing to do with them. I thought his parents would want him to do the right thing, but it seems their concern about… not wanting to get involved in their son's personal matters, are overriding that. So f**k them." ‌ How was the meal served? The court was told the four guests were handed their meal on a grey plates while Patterson had hers on an orange plate. The suspect has denied these claims and told the court she did not own any grey dishes. She told the court the meal was served up on a mixture of black and white plates. Despite this, footage from a police search of her home appeared to show two grey plates next to the dishwasher. ‌ Did she vomit after the meal? Patterson told the court she had bulimia and ate several slices of an orange cake her 70-year-old in-law brought for dessert. She told the court: "I kept cleaning up the kitchen and putting everything away and, um, I had a piece of cake and then I had another piece of cake. And then another." She told the court she ate all of the cake and "felt sick. I felt over-full. So I went to the toilets and brought it up again". ‌ Was she genuinely sick? Patterson said she was hit with diarrhoea after the meal and suffered with it for a week. She went to a local hospital and complained of "gastro". Despite this, medical professionals did not believed her symptoms were as bad as what her four guests experienced. The court heard from nurse Cindy Munro who said Patterson "didn't look unwell" when compared to the guests. Doctor Varuna Ruggoo said tests for her liver function came back with normal results. Why did she throw the dehydrator away? The day after Patterson left hospital she went to a rubbish tip and was seen on CCTV throwing the Sunbeam dehydrator out. When asked about the device she claimed she tried to get rid of the dehydrator because she "panicked" after a conversation with her ex-husband a few days earlier. She claimed he asked her: "Is that what you used to poison my parents?" ‌ She said: "I was scared of the conversation that might flow about the meal and the dehydrator and I was scared that they [child protection] would blame me for it." Despite this, the ex-husband claimed he did not remember saying that to her. Why did she lie about having cancer? Patterson invited her in-laws for the meal on a false pretence of receiving a cancer diagnosis, as prosecutors said it was highly unusual for Patterson to hold social gatherings. She had told Gail a few weeks earlier that she found a lump on her elbow. At the dinner she suggested she had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. The mother of two later admitted she never had cancer, but had been worried enough by symptoms to seek tests. She then said she had been dealing with "self-esteem" issues and was embarrassed to tell her family that. How will the jury decide this case? Patterson has held that the other parties in this case, like her ex-husband, medical professionals and Facebook friends, have been wrong in their accounts. Her eight-day cross-examination has come to an end and she still pleads not guilty. Now the case is in the hands of the jury who will return their verdict.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store