Australia mushroom murder trial judge tells jury to ignore lies in reaching verdict

Independent

4 hours ago

In the trial of Erin Patterson, the Australian woman accused of murdering three lunch guests with death cap mushrooms, Supreme Court justice Christopher Beale provided final directions to the jury on Tuesday.
He instructed the jurors to put aside any lies the accused may have told and focus solely on the evidence when deciding if she was guilty of triple murder.
The jury must decide whether Ms Patterson is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of three counts of murder and one of attempted murder.
Ms Patterson, 50, is on trial for allegedly serving death cap mushrooms in a beef wellington meal to her estranged husband's relatives at her home in Leongatha, Victoria, on 29 July 2023.
Her former partner's parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and his aunt, Heather Wilkinson, became seriously ill after eating the lunch and died a few days later. Heather's husband, Ian Wilkinson, was hospitalised but survived.
Ms Patterson has pleaded not guilty to the charges, maintaining that the deaths were accidental.
A central part of the prosecution's case against Ms Patterson relies on hearsay evidence which Justice Beale cautioned the jury to approach with scrutiny due to its potential unreliability. He said this warning was necessary as the statements were made outside a courtroom.
The statements in question came from Mr Wilkinson and Ms Patterson's former husband Simon Patterson. Both reported that Ms Patterson may have eaten from a 'different coloured plate' at the lunch and spoken about possibly having ovarian cancer.
'I must warn you about the need for caution when considering the hearsay evidence of Simon Patterson and Ian Wilkinson,' Justice Beale told the jury.
The judge noted that out-of-court statements were prone to error and, even if made honestly, might not accurately reflect what was said as the speaker could have been mistaken.
In her testimony, Ms Patterson admitted to foraging for mushrooms and using them in her meals. She acknowledged lying after the fatal lunch but denied knowingly serving toxic mushrooms.
She testified that while some mushrooms came from Woolworths and Asian grocers, 'the vast majority of the mushrooms for that meal came from the local Woolworths'.
'She told you that she accepted that death cap mushrooms were in the beef Wellingtons, she told you the vast majority of the mushrooms for that meal came from the local Woolworths in Leongatha, although some came from an Asian grocery store she purchased from in the 2023 April school holidays,' Justice Beale told the jurors.
Justice Beale recounted Ms Patterson testifying to purchasing a dehydrator after moving to Leongatha and sharing photos of it on Facebook. She initially used it to dry mushrooms gathered from the local botanical gardens though the results were poor.
Ms Patterson had described this attempt as more of an 'experiment' before she gained confidence and began drying and consuming mushrooms.
Prosecutors alleged that she had fabricated her foraging history, calling her a 'self-confessed liar' who had no supporting evidence such as books or messages about foraging.
Ms Patterson's lawyers however maintained that she was simply a mushroom enthusiast and 'a person of good character'.
'Generally, it is believed a person of good character is less likely to commit a criminal offence. But this does not mean you have to find her not guilty. It can only help to determine if facts have been proved,' Justice Beale told the jurors. 'People of previous good character can commit a crime.'
Noting that character witnesses, including Facebook friends, had described Ms Patterson as a devoted mother, the judge said: 'The issue is not whether she is in some sense responsible for the tragic consequences of the lunch, but whether the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she is criminally responsible.'
'Similarly, the fact that, on her own admission, Erin Patterson told lies and disposed of evidence must not cause you to be prejudiced against her,' he added. 'This is a court of law, not a court of morals.'