Woman who denies mushroom murders accepts she served death caps for lunch
An Australian woman accused of murdering three of her estranged husband's relatives with poisonous mushrooms told a court on Tuesday she accepted that the fatal lunch she served contained death caps.
But Erin Patterson said the 'vast majority' of the fungi came from local stores.
She denies three counts of murder and one of attempted murder over the beef Wellington meal she served to her parents-in-law and her estranged husband's aunt and uncle at her home in July 2023.
Don Patterson, Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson were taken to hospital and died after the lunch in the rural town of Leongatha in the Australian state of Victoria.
Heather's husband, Ian Wilkinson, was gravely ill but survived.
Patterson's lawyer earlier told the Supreme Court trial that the poisoning was a tragic accident but prosecutors said it was deliberate.
If convicted, she faces a sentence of life imprisonment on the murder charges and 25 years in jail for attempted murder.
Long queues formed outside the Latrobe Valley Courthouse on Tuesday after Patterson took the stand, which was the first time she had spoken publicly since the deaths.
During several hours of evidence on Tuesday, Patterson, 50, told the court she began foraging fungi during the Covid-19 lockdown of March 2020, witnessed only by her children.
'I cut a bit of one of the mushrooms, fried it up with some butter and ate it,' she said. 'They tasted good and I didn't get sick.'
Patterson said she also fed foraged mushrooms to her children, chopped up 'very, very small' so they could not pick them out of curries, pasta and soups.
She developed a taste for exotic varieties, joined a 'mushroom lovers' Facebook group, and bought a dehydrator to preserve her finds, Patterson said.
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.
'Yes, I do,' said Patterson.
The accused told her lawyer most of the mushrooms she used that day came from local supermarkets. She agreed she might have put them in the same container as dehydrated wild mushrooms she had foraged weeks earlier and others from an Asian food store.
Mr Mandy in April told the court his client had lied when she initially told investigators that she had never foraged before. But he denied that she had deliberately sought out death cap mushrooms and said she disposed of her dehydrator in a panic about the accidental deaths.
Earlier Tuesday, Patterson became tearful when she was asked about expletive-filled messages she had sent about her in-laws in December 2022 in a Facebook group chat that she described as a 'safe venting space' for a group of women.
'I wish I'd never said it. I feel very ashamed for saying it and I wish that the family didn't have to hear that I said it,' said Patterson. 'They didn't deserve it.'
Patterson, who said she had tried to have her parents-in-law mediate a dispute with her estranged husband, Simon, about school fees, said she was feeling hurt, frustrated and 'a little bit desperate'.
The couple formally separated in 2015 after earlier temporary splits, the court has heard. Simon Patterson was invited to the July 2023 lunch but did not attend.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
2 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Accused mushroom killer says she lied to police
An Australian woman accused of murdering three people with poisonous mushrooms has told a court that she lied to police because she feared being held "responsible". Erin Patterson is charged with murdering her estranged husband's parents and aunt in 2023 by spiking their beef Wellington lunch with lethal death cap mushrooms. She is also accused of attempting to murder a fourth guest - her husband's uncle - who survived after a long stay in hospital. Ms Patterson maintains the lunch was poisoned by accident and has pleaded not guilty to all charges. An Australian court was told how she used a food dehydrator to prepare mushrooms that she had collected while foraging. Ms Patterson later told police she did not own a food dehydrator, the prosecution said. "You lied about dehydrating food and mushrooms because you knew that if you told police the truth, then that would implicate you in the poisoned lunch," prosecution lawyer Nanette Rogers said. "Agree or disagree?" "I agree that I lied because I was afraid I would be held responsible," Ms Patterson responded. The court previously heard that Ms Patterson used a food dehydrator to preserve store-bought and foraged mushrooms, which she then kept in her pantry. Days after the deadly lunch, security cameras allegedly captured Ms Patterson discarding the dehydrator at a local rubbish dump. Detectives said they found traces of death cap mushrooms in the dehydrator, the court previously heard. "I didn't deliberately put death cap mushrooms in the meal," Ms Patterson told the court. The prosecution alleges she intentionally poisoned her lunch guests and took care that she did not consume the deadly mushrooms herself. Her defence says Ms Patterson ate the same meal as the others but did not fall as sick. Ms Patterson asked her estranged husband Simon to the family lunch at her secluded rural Victoria home in July 2023. Simon turned down the invitation because he felt too uncomfortable, the court heard previously. The pair were long estranged but still legally married. Simon's parents, Don and Gail, were happy to attend, dying days after eating the home-cooked meal. Simon's aunt, Heather Wilkinson, also died, while her husband Ian fell seriously ill but later recovered. Ms Patterson told the court that if Simon had attended the lunch, she would have "given him a beef Wellington too". "But not one with death cap mushrooms in it intentionally," she said. Ms Patterson's defence lawyer, Colin Mandy, asked if she intended to kill or cause serious injury to her lunch guests that day. Ms Patterson replied she did not.
Irish Independent
2 hours ago
- Irish Independent
Calls for media regulator to take a ‘hard line' with Facebook on bogus accounts – ‘They could destroy someone's reputation'
Labour TD George Lawlor is the latest in a whole host of public representatives or public figures to have been targeted with a fake 'cloned' account, bearing his name and photos. The fake account has not made a post publicly yet and, due to Deputy Lawlor making it clear via his own pages that the account was bogus, has only amassed a small number of 'friends' on Facebook. "While the account may not have posted publicly, I have no way of knowing what kind of private messages its sending to people purporting to be me,' the Wexford TD said. "It's just one example of this type of thing. I and several of my friends and colleagues have reported this fake account to Facebook and they refused to take action stating that it wasn't in breach of their standards. It's bizarre.' In a correspondence from the social media giant, Deputy Lawlor was told: 'We didn't remove the profile. To keep our review process as fair as possible, we use the same set of Community Standards to review all reports. "We've taken a look and found that the profile doesn't go against our Community Standards. We understand that this may be upsetting, so we recommend exploring the options available to control what you see.' The TD was then told he could request a review within 180 days if unhappy with the decision not to remove the page. "The notion that pages that are clearly fake are not being actioned by Facebook is indicative of the type of organisation that Facebook has become,' Deputy Lawlor blasted. "God knows what damage a page like this could do to someone's reputation if people were to assume it was the person in the profile picture. "It's high time that Coimisiún na Meán took a hard line on this. People's reputations can be irreparably tarnished as a result of fake profiles set up by people with nothing better to do.'
RTÉ News
2 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Bitter pill: EU exploits Trump anti-science climate to forge deal on medicines
The EU's sweeping new rules on the regulation of medicines has been one of the most bitterly contested pieces of legislation in recent times, with fierce lobbying by the pharma sector - particularly in Ireland - and member states divided on which to prioritise: cheaper medicines for patients, or a regulatory environment that supports indigenous European manufacturers in the face of US dominance. After two years of deadlock, 26 member states have agreed on a compromise proposal, with only Malta - which has its own small-market medicines challenge - abstaining. Ironically, it was the Trump administration's hostility to science and medicine regulators that convinced EU member states that the moment to finally agree on a new set of rules was at hand. "In the US you have a chaotic situation," says one source familiar with negotiations, "between [Health Secretary] Robert Kennedy Jr, who doesn't believe in science or vaccines, and the Trump administration, which has sacked three and a half thousand people from the Food and Drugs Administration. "There was a sense in Europe that we should try to get this proposal settled so that we have a stable system in Europe when there's instability elsewhere." The legislation will now go to the European Parliament, where negotiations between MEPs, the member states and the European Commission, begin on 17 June. There are hopes that the entire package could be adopted by the end of the year. The European Commission first proposed overhauling the EU's medicines regime in April 2023, as Europe was emerging from the Covid pandemic. The EU was reeling from the strain the emergency put on health systems and on the availability of certain kinds of medicines, with a deepening awareness that Europe was overly dependent on China and India for drugs such as antibiotics. At the same time, digitalisation and the availability of clinical data were opening up new possibilities in how medicines are developed and used. Despite that, innovative therapies were not reaching patients across Europe at the same speed while in some member states patients did not have access to medicines they needed due to shortages. The instinct to reduce health spending further has been given fresh impetus by the expected surge in EU defence expenditure following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Overall, the pharma package sought to boost the competitiveness of the sector, reduce the administrative burden - and the over-reliance on India and China - and to tackle the environmental impact of drug manufacture and use. The central, most divisive issue was around the protection that big European pharma countries would have in holding on to clinical data before generic manufacturers - who could produce cheaper drugs - could access it. It became a straightforward contest between the competing interests of big pharma, which argued that companies needed the protection in order to invest more in life-saving domestic European research and innovation, and those countries which were more interested in lowering the cost of medicines and making those medicines more accessible to patients. The legislation was always going to face a stormy passage. "The difficulty was that the countries that didn't have pharmaceutical industries were very much opposing the regulatory data protection (RDP) element because all they were interested in was making medicines available to citizens," says Fianna Fáil MEP Billy Kelleher, a substitute member of the European Parliament health committee. "Eastern European countries like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and others would have been very, very reluctant to support the strong protection of regulatory data, while it was the old West, countries like Ireland, Belgium, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands that have big manufacturing and pharma centres, a lot of research and development, who were pushing for it." The new rules would attempt to reconcile the issue of regulatory data protection, which theoretically encourages pharmaceutical companies to invest more in life-saving medicines, with the need to make drugs more affordable. Under existing EU rules, pharma companies were entitled to keep clinical data for eight years - the so-called regulatory data protection (RDP) before they were obliged to make it accessible. After the eight years was up, generic producers could file an application to use the data, at which point the patent holder enjoyed a further two - and sometimes three - extra years of protection. Under the commission's 2023 proposal, there would be a two-year reduction in the baseline RDP to six years, with an extra two years of protection. However, pharma companies could claw back a further two years of protection - extending RDP to ten years. The ten-year protection period would be available if the patent holder won approval for significant new innovations (one extra year of protection), if the product addressed an "unmet medical need", ie, where there was product authorised in the EU for a particular disease, or where the disease was associated with a high death-rate (such a situation would merit an extra six months of market protection), or if the manufacturer conducted clinical trials or extended access to all member states (another six months). Essentially, the commission was attempting to balance the need to reward medicines that meet the greatest clinical need, while speeding up access to generic producers who will make drugs that are cheaper. However, the new rules were facing hostility from traditional pharma manufacturing countries such as Germany, France, Denmark and the Netherlands, who argued that a shorter clinical data protection period would stymie research. The Irish Times reported on a full scale lobbying effort by industry, including a claim in a letter to Tánaiste Simon Harris by the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association (IPHA) that the proposal could lead to a 22% drop in new medicines being developed over the coming decade. It is understood there were tensions between the IDA and Enterprise Ireland, who shared the concerns of industry, and the Department of Health, which was more concerned with lowering the cost of medicines and making them more accessible. A number of sources have said that while member states with important pharma sectors went public two years ago, when the commission first proposed reducing clinical data protection from eight years to six, in demanding the status quo of eight years, Ireland remained on the fence, and did so right up until a key meeting of EU ambassadors on 21 May. On that date, Ireland joined a blocking majority of ten countries - including Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany - to oppose the latest Polish proposal that would have essentially increased the RDP by one year to seven, but short of eight. As a result of that blocking minority, the Poles came back with another compromise text, which is - to all intents and purposes - a return to eight years, with various caveats and conditions designed to make medicines cheaper and more accessible (one part of the text aims to ensure that medicinal products are available in all member states and provides for regulatory action if the marketing authorisation holder does not comply). Officials say the text provides more reassurance for generic producers, and will cut timelines for authorised medicines to get to market. There are other measures, including making it easier to have multi-country and multilingual medicine packs, which should reduce production costs and make it easier to move medicines around Europe. At yesterday morning's meeting of EU ambassadors, the new text received overwhelming support. The IPHA are understood to be broadly satisfied with the compromise. In a statement, the organisation said it "believes the [member states] position represents a more balanced approach than had originally been proposed by the Commission. "As the legislative process enters the final phase, EU decision makers must continue to find solutions that will keep Europe competitive through a predictable and globally competitive environment for research, development and manufacturing, while ensuring fairer access to innovative medicines for patients across the EU." Support is not uniform. The chief executive of the Confederation of Danish Industry Lars Sandahl Sørensen accused member states of triggering a potential flight of European industry to Trump's America. "We are de facto making the EU's pharmaceutical industry less competitive and thus European society vulnerable," he said. The European pharma lobby group EFPIA described yesterday's position by member states as "a missed opportunity to position Europe's life sciences sector at the forefront of global competition". In a statement, EFPIA said: "The choice to reduce intellectual property protections for pharmaceutical companies makes Europe less attractive, discouraging investment and jeopardising the development of innovative treatments in Europe without addressing the underlying barriers and delays to patient access." There is some scepticism over the industry's seeming exploitation of Donald Trump's persistence in threatening tariffs on European pharmaceutical exports and reshoring manufacturing to the US. In April the industry wrote to commission president Ursula von der Leyen, suggesting that €50.6 billion in capital investment and €52.6bn in research and development expenditure were at risk if the EU continued to over-regulate the pharma sector. "Unless Europe delivers rapid, radical policy change then pharmaceutical research, development and manufacturing is increasingly likely to be directed towards the US," EFPIA warned. Officials suggest the upcoming Critical Medicines Act (CMA) will further boost access to cheaper medicines. Drugs such as those for diabetes or HRT have been susceptible to disruption and shortages in recent years because they are often generic and produced outside the EU. The CMA will aim to encourage more manufacturing of such drugs in Europe. The action now moves to the European Parliament, where so-called trilogues - three way negotiations between member states, the Commission and MEPs - will further shape the legislation. Last year the parliament adopted its own position, calling for an RDP of seven and a half years with the possibility of some extensions. The parliament has since moved to the right, following last year's elections, so it remains to be seen if further battles are expected.
