What the jury wasn't allowed to hear in the Erin Patterson trial: suspicions and mystery illnesses

The Guardian

08-08-2025

Simon Patterson told his father, Don, and other family members that he suspected his estranged wife, Erin Patterson, had been trying to poison him before she invited his parents and his aunt and uncle to a fatal beef wellington lunch, according to evidence heard in a pre-trial hearing.
One argument heard in court, but not able to be revealed to the jury in Erin Patterson's triple murder trial, involved police suspicions that she might have previously used rat poison in an alleged attempt to kill Simon.
On 7 July, Patterson was found guilty of murdering Simon's parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and his aunt Heather Wilkinson and guilty of attempting to murder Heather's husband, Ian Wilkinson.
On 8 August, an interim suppression order prohibiting Australian media from reporting on any evidentiary rulings made in pre-trial hearings and during the trial was lifted, after a coalition of media organisations, including Guardian Australia, successfully challenged the order.
The lifting of the order, which was imposed immediately after the guilty verdicts by the supreme court trial's judge, Justice Christopher Beale, means material and claims that jurors were not allowed to hear can now be made public.
Pre-trial hearings allow the accused to test the reliability of evidence before trial, and for rulings to be made by a judge which are designed to ensure the fairness of that trial. These hearings in Erin Patterson's case involved dozens of witnesses and were held in the Victorian supreme court over several months in 2024.
The hearings typically involved lawyers for Patterson questioning these witnesses about statements they made to police. These statements and other evidence relied upon during these hearings were not released to the media.
Some of the evidence that did not make it from these hearings to the trial related to separate charges alleging that Patterson had attempted to murder Simon, which were later dropped. In pre-trial hearings and the trial itself some evidence was ruled inadmissible by Beale as it was deemed unfairly prejudicial to Patterson.
Reporting on inadmissible evidence is not permitted until after the jury has reached a verdict.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
The prosecution sought to have three charges of attempted murder against Erin Patterson involving Simon in 2021 and 2022 heard at the same time as three charges of murder and a charge of attempted murder relating to the 29 July 2023 beef wellington lunch Patterson served at her home at Leongatha, in regional Australia.
But Beale ruled on 14 March 2025 that the two sets of charges, referred to as the 'Simon charges' and the 'lunch charges', would have to be heard separately. The DPP unsuccessfully appealed to the court of appeal, and then decided to drop the attempted murder charges relating to Simon.
In his March decision, before the trial, Beale made six rulings.
These rulings included: that all evidence of the computer records on devices seized from the home of Patterson concerning access to, or possible access to, information on poisons be excluded, apart from one document; that cell phone tower evidence concerning alleged visits by Patterson to Loch and Outtrim be admitted; that so-called tendency evidence be excluded as it lacked 'significant probative value'; that most evidence about alleged incriminating conduct be admitted; and that some evidence about hearsay evidence would be admitted.
Ruling six related to 'coincidence evidence', which was excluded.
'As a consequence I have ordered severance in relation to what I will describe as the two matters,' Beale said in March.
'On the one hand, Charges 1 to 3, which are charges of attempted murder in relation to Simon Patterson, and, on the other hand, Charges 4 to 7, which is one charge of attempted murder in relation to Ian Wilkinson and three charges of murder in relation to the other guests. I order that that be a separate trial.'
Neither Beale's reasons for ruling out evidence at the pre-trial hearings nor the written submissions made by the prosecution and defence in relation to which evidence should be admissible have been made public. Given the 'Simon charges' were dropped, the evidence related to them remains untested.
During a hearing before the court of appeal in April 2024, prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC said that police uncovered digital forensic evidence from a computer seized at Patterson's home relating to an article about barium carbonate, which is commonly used as rat poison.
She said that Prof Andrew Burston, an intensive care specialist who reviewed Simon's medical records, found that one of Simon's admissions to hospital that was suspected of being linked to Patterson was 'consistent' with barium carbonate poisoning. Rogers qualified during the court of appeal hearing that this evidence had not been put to Beale in the supreme court pre-trial hearings.
Rogers told the court that Burston found no definitive cause for the illnesses affecting Simon's stomach and bowel.
The three attempted murder charges related to the only times the prosecution say that Patterson went away with Simon, without their children, since they separated in 2015, Rogers said, adding that police also investigated a fourth time that Simon fell unwell, but Patterson was not charged in relation to this.
The prosecution sought to combine the three Simon charges and the July 2023 lunch as four events over a 20-month period where they alleged that Patterson poisoned people she prepared food for.
It was not alleged that Patterson used death cap mushrooms in any of the food prepared for Simon, which Rogers told the court included pasta, curry, and a wrap.
Colin Mandy SC, for Patterson, told the court of appeal that none of the coincidences relied upon by the prosecution to join the Simon charges and the lunch charges were remarkable enough to warrant them being admitted.
These alleged coincidences between the lunch and Simon charges included that Patterson prepared the meals, controlled who ate them, and poisoned the food.
Mandy said that Patterson prepared food for Simon 'countless' times without him becoming unwell.
There was also evidence Simon may have become unwell before eating food prepared by Patterson in relation to one of the charges, and a possibility that he initiated some of the trips away with her, Mandy said, rather than them having been arranged by the accused.
The court of appeal should consider, Mandy said, 'how different these two trials are in terms of body of evidence'.
He said the lunch charges 'were in a very different category' to the Simon charges, with an 'extensive body of evidence' to be led by the prosecution.
The prosecution accepted that there was less evidence that was relied upon for the 'Simon charges' than the 'lunch charges'.
Simon told pre-trial hearings that after his repeated hospital admissions, extended family members said to him they were 'wondering if Erin had been poisoning me'.
He said he came to the same conclusion after meeting with his GP and being asked to prepare a summary of everything that happened immediately before he was hospitalised.
He told the court that he found the common denominator was eating food prepared by Patterson, and not eaten by anyone else, immediately prior to falling ill.
Mandy asked Simon during a pre-trial hearing in October 2024 whether he 'believed, and continue to believe, you fell ill because of food Erin had prepared for you?'
'Yes,' he responded.
Mandy then asked if Simon agreed with the proposition that before the end of 2022 'there was nothing untoward about the relationship between you and Erin?'
'If by 'nothing untoward', you mean anything that would make me think she would try and kill me, correct,' Simon responded.
Much of the evidence about Simon's suspicions was raised in a pre-trial hearing in August 2024.
His GP, Dr Christopher Ford, told the court that it was during a 55-minute consultation on 21 February 2023, that he and Simon discussed these poisoning concerns.
Ford and the Patterson family attended the Korumburra Baptist church, where Ian Wilkinson was the pastor, and Ford said he had become friends with Simon.
At an earlier appointment, Ford said that he asked Simon to record the details of what had happened immediately before he was admitted to hospital. Ford said Simon reached the conclusion Patterson was using food to poison him.
'I asked him to do that because I couldn't understand why … these things kept on happening to him in such a way that he had essentially almost had three near death experiences,' Ford told the court.
'It didn't fit into any of my medical models that would account for all three of those things.
'There was no other reasons that could fit all the different admissions, so it seemed feasible it could be a possible reason.'
Simon had been so unwell he had to have part of his bowel removed, the court heard.
Simon also raised concerns during that consultation about cookies given to him by his daughter that were prepared by Patterson, Ford said. Simon told him Patterson called multiple times to ask if he'd eaten the cookies, and he wondered if antifreeze had been used in them to poison him.
Ford told the court that Simon told him he kept a sample to test, but Ford said he could not recall finding out if the sample had been tested.
Ford also said Simon advised him during the consultation that, given his conclusions about Patterson, he wished to change his advanced care directives.
He changed these directives so that his father, Don Patterson, not his estranged wife, was listed as his medical power of attorney, Ford said.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
Soon after this, Ford told the court, he had a 'coded conversation' with Don at church, in which he believed the pair understood each other regarding the change Simon had made.
Ford said in his pre-trial evidence that shortly after this same service he was standing in church with Simon when Patterson approached, confirmed an appointment time with Ford for the Pattersons' daughter, and then turned to Simon and invited him to lunch.
Ford said that after Patterson left, Simon said to him 'he will politely decline her invite'. During the trial, the court heard that Simon cancelled the night before the lunch, upsetting Patterson.
On 30 July 2023, the morning after the lunch, Ford said that Simon called him to tell him that Patterson's guests had fallen ill.
Ford told the court he then contacted a doctor who was treating some of the guests, Dr Chris Webster, and told him he suspected they may have been deliberately poisoned.
He said he then visited the hospital to tell a second doctor, and saw Don and Gail Patterson there.
He said he spoke to Don, who had a jar of vomit with him. Ford, who did not give evidence during the trial, told the pre-trial hearing that he thought Don was holding on to it because it could be evidence, but said Don did not say those exact words.
Ford said he believed this was what was implied because of his previous conversations with Don about suspected poisoning.
'As best as I can remember, he held the jar of vomit up and said, 'I've got this sample, what do you think I should do with it, Chris?' I then replied saying 'Hold on to it because it could be useful later', or along those lines.
'There was implied meaning in there but nothing more explicitly.'
The pre-trial hearings heard evidence that Simon discussed his suspicions with some family members before the lunch, but told the broader family, including the Wilkinsons' children, during a meeting at the chapel of the Austin hospital on 2 August 2023.
Ruth Dubois, the Wilkinsons' daughter, said in evidence before a pre-trial hearing on 21 August 2024 that this was when she was 'made aware of Simon's suspicions'.
'Simon came to us one night and wanted to have a chat with us and our family,' Dubois said.
'He wanted to tell us that he suspected his … illnesses had been a deliberate act, that he had stopped eating food than Erin had prepared.
'He suspected Erin had been messing with it, he was really sorry that he hadn't told our family before this … but he thought he was the only person she was targeting, and that we would be safe.'
She said some of her siblings, including David Wilkinson, who had walked Patterson down the aisle at her wedding, and Simon's siblings, were at the meeting.
She told the court that the next day, Simon emailed his siblings and cousins about the chapel meeting, attaching his medical records.
Dubois said she did not think she had discussed his allegations with him since.
Her mother, Heather Wilkinson, and Gail died the next day, and Don on 5 August.
According to evidence heard in the s198b hearings in October 2024, Simon also told Sally Ann Atkinson, the department of health official investigating the poisoning, that he believed Patterson may have previously tried to poison him on multiple occasions, and also told child protection workers about his suspicions.
In the same March 2025 ruling in which Beale declared that the lunch charges and Simon charges should be severed, he excluded other records taken from computers seized from Patterson's home 'regarding access or possible access to information on poisons'.
In the ruling, Beale also declared that a post Patterson put on a Facebook page called 'Poisons Help; Emergency Identification For Mushrooms & Plants' was inadmissible.
The reasons for this ruling and prosecution and defence submissions about the admissibility of evidence have not been released to the media.
During her trial, but without the jury present, the post was raised amid legal argument about whether to re-admit tendency evidence regarding Patterson, following an application by her lawyers.
It was not disputed that Patterson made the post, but it was ultimately not admitted into evidence.
The court heard that Patterson posted on this Facebook page that her cat had just eaten a mushroom that was growing in grass under a tree.
'He's having a vomit,' Patterson wrote in the post under the profile name Erin Erin.
'The accused has never owned a cat,' prosecutor Jane Warren told the court.
Other evidence raised in pre-trial hearings that was not heard during the trial included that Simon considered writing a book or taking part in an interview with a major television network and was paying a public relations expert.
But he denied that financial reward was the only reason he was considering these options.
'I think there would be quite a few [reasons] why that would be a good idea,' Simon said, while being cross-examined by Mandy, for Patterson, during a hearing in October 2024.
'The local community is grieving because of what happened, and a lot of people are keen to know what happened. I think informing them of what happened would help with their grief.
'Another reason is that it's possible that you're here to damage my reputation. You're paid by Erin, I believe she's trying to harm me, and you're her mouthpiece.
'And that will shape the media narrative, that potentially creates a risk to me that I need to mitigate after the trial is over.'
'For considerable financial reward?' Mandy asked.
'Potentially yes,' Simon responded.
Other evidence from the pre-trial hearings included testimony from the so-called Facebook friends, who met Patterson through the Keep Keli Lane Behind Bars group.
One of the friends, Daniela Barkley, who said she was working on a book about the case called What Tore Us Apart, said she also had a 'vivid' recollection of Patterson being upset that Simon bought her a shovel for her birthday in 2022.