Factbox-Key facts in Australia's mushroom murder trial

The Star

5 hours ago

(Reuters) -The jury in the trial of an Australian woman accused of a triple murder with a meal she allegedly laced with toxic mushrooms is expected to begin considering its verdict this week, in a case that has gripped the country.
Here are the key facts and main arguments in the case.
KEY FACTS
Erin Patterson, 50, is charged with the murders of her mother-in-law Gail Patterson, father-in-law Donald Patterson and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson, along with the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband.
All were relatives of her estranged husband Simon Patterson, who declined the invitation for the July 29, 2023 lunch.
The four gathered at Erin Patterson's home in Leongatha, a town of about 6,000 people some 135 km (84 miles) southeast of Melbourne where the mother of two served them individual Beef Wellingtons accompanied by mashed potato and green beans.
The wellingtons were later found to contain death caps, among the world's deadliest mushrooms.
Within hours, the four fell seriously ill and were admitted to hospital. Ian Wilkinson, who spent weeks in an induced coma, was the only survivor.
Erin Patterson was arrested in November 2023 and has been in custody ever since.
THE TRIAL
The trial began on April 29 in Morwell, a former coal mining town about two hours east of Melbourne.
Overseen by Justice Christopher Beale, it has generated huge interest in Australia and internationally, with the six seats in the court reserved for media allocated in a daily ballot. Members of the public have also queued each morning to be able to watch proceedings from the gallery.
Public broadcaster ABC's daily podcast on the trial is the country's most popular, while streaming service Stan has commissioned a documentary on what it says is "one of the highest profile criminal cases in recent history".
The charges carry a life sentence.
PROSECUTION
The prosecution, lead by Nanette Rogers, spent a month laying out its case against Erin Patterson.
Rogers told the court that the accused had foraged for the death caps, dried them and measured out a "fatal dose" on her kitchen scales before adding them to her guests' Beef Wellingtons, ensuring her own food was untainted.
It was all part of a "sinister deception", Rogers argued, saying Patterson had lied to police when asked whether she had ever foraged for mushrooms or owned a food dehydrator, which was later found in a landfill site and contained traces of death caps.
Dozens of witnesses, including relatives and forensic, medical and mushroom experts, gave evidence for the prosecution.
Among them was Simon Patterson, who told of the couple's strained relationship in the months before the fatal lunch.
Ian Wilkinson also gave evidence, telling the court the accused had served her own meal on a different coloured plate.
DEFENCE
Erin Patterson's defence, led by barrister Colin Mandy, did not dispute there were death caps in the meal or that she had lied to police about key details such as foraging for mushrooms.
But Mandy told the court the deaths were a "terrible accident" and that while the accused might have had "spats and disagreements and frustrations" in her relationship with her estranged husband she had no reason to kill her lunch guests.
Erin Patterson gave evidence in her own defence and spent eight days in the witness box including five days of cross-examination by Rogers.
She was the only witness for the defence.
JURY
Fifteen jurors were initially selected for the trial and 12 will be chosen by ballot to take part in the final deliberations.
Justice Beale has repeatedly instructed the jury not to conduct their own research on the case, or to discuss it outside the jury room.
One juror was dismissed last month for allegedly discussing the case with family and friends.
Jurors in Australia are not responsible for sentencing and are not allowed to speak publicly after the trial.
Juries in murder trials in Victoria, the state where the case is being held, must return a unanimous verdict. If the jury cannot reach a verdict within a reasonable time frame, the judge can order the trial to be held again.
(Reporting by Alasdair Pal in Sydney; Editing by Kate Mayberry)