
Woman on trial for mushroom murders says she was trying to improve ‘bland' lunch
Before Erin Patterson's in-laws and their relatives arrived at her home for lunch, she bought expensive ingredients, consulted friends about recipes and sent her children out to see a film.
Then she served them a dish containing poisonous death cap mushrooms — a meal that was fatal for three of her four guests.
Whether that was Patterson's plan is at the heart of a triple murder trial that has gripped Australia for nearly six weeks.
Prosecutors in the Supreme Court case in the state of Victoria say the accused lured her guests to lunch with a lie about having cancer, before deliberately feeding them toxic fungi.
But her lawyers say the tainted beef Wellington she served was a tragic accident caused by a mushroom storage mishap. She denies murdering her estranged husband's parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and their relative, Heather Wilkinson.
The mother of two also denies attempting to murder Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson, who survived the meal. In a rare step for a defendant charged with murder, Patterson chose to speak in her own defence at her trial this week.
On Wednesday, she spoke publicly for the first time about the fateful lunch in July 2023 and offered her explanations on how she planned the meal and did not become ill herself.
No one disputes that Patterson, 50, served death cap mushrooms to her guests for lunch in the rural town of Leongatha, but she says she did it unknowingly.
Patterson said on Wednesday she splurged on expensive ingredients and researched ideas to find 'something special' to serve. She deviated from her chosen recipe to improve the 'bland' flavour, she said.
She believed she was adding dried fungi bought from an Asian supermarket from a container in her pantry, she told the court.
'Now I think that there was a possibility that there were foraged ones in there as well,' she told her lawyer, Colin Mandy. Patterson had foraged wild mushrooms for years, she told the court Tuesday, and had put some in her pantry weeks before the deaths.
Patterson, who formally separated from her husband Simon Patterson in 2015, said she felt 'hurt' when Simon told her the night before the lunch that he 'wasn't comfortable' attending.
She earlier told his relatives that she had arranged the meal to discuss her health. Patterson admitted this week that she never had cancer — but after a health scare, she told her in-laws she did.
In reality, Patterson said she intended to have weight loss surgery. But she was too embarrassed to tell anybody and planned to pretend to her in-laws that she was undergoing cancer treatment instead, she said.
'I was ashamed of the fact that I didn't have control over my body or what I ate,' a tearful Patterson said Wednesday. 'I didn't want to tell anybody, but I shouldn't have lied to them.'
The accused said she believes she was spared the worst effects of the poisoned meal because she self-induced vomiting shortly after her lunch guests left. She had binged on most of a cake and then made herself throw up — a problem she said she had struggled with for decades.
Patterson also said she believes she had eaten enough of the meal to cause her subsequent diarrhoea. She then sought hospital treatment but unlike her lunch guests, she quickly recovered.
At the hospital where her guests' health was deteriorating, her estranged husband asked her about the dehydrator she used to dry her foraged mushrooms, she said.
'Is that how you poisoned my parents?' she said Simon Patterson asked her.
Growing afraid she would be blamed for the poisoning and that her children would be taken from her, Patterson said she later disposed of her dehydrator. She told investigators she'd never owned one and had not foraged for mushrooms before.
While still at the hospital, she insisted she'd bought all the mushrooms at stores even though she said she knew it was possible that foraged mushrooms had accidentally found their way into the meal.
She was too frightened to tell anyone, Patterson said.
Also later, Patterson said she remotely wiped her mobile phone while it sat in an evidence locker to remove pictures of mushrooms she had foraged.
Prosecutors argued in opening their case in April that she poisoned her husband's family on purpose, although they did not suggest a motive. She carefully avoided poisoning herself and faked being ill, they said.
The trial continues with Patterson's cross-examination by the prosecutors. If convicted, she faces life in prison for murder and 25 years for attempted murder.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NBC News
17 minutes ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court leaves District of Columbia gun restriction on large magazines in place
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday left in place a longstanding gun restriction in the District of Columbia that bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, opting once again to avoid taking up a new gun rights case. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that generally favors gun rights, turned away a challenge to the Washington, D.C., law just a few days after rejecting an appeal over a similar law in Rhode Island. Then, the court also left in place Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons including the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. The court expanded gun rights in a major 2022 ruling that found for the first time that the right to bear arms under the Constitution's Second Amendment extends outside the home. But the court has since frustrated gun owners by declining to take up cases that would expand upon that ruling. The District of Columbia has long been a legal battleground over gun restrictions. The Supreme Court's landmark 2008 ruling that for the first time found that people have an individual right to bear arms in self defense in their homes arose from a challenge to a D.C. law. In the latest case, four gun owners challenged the restriction on large-capacity magazines that was enacted in the aftermath of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, saying the restriction is unlawful under the later 2022 decision. Both a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law. The appeals court, in a 2-1 vote, said in a ruling last year that although large-capacity magazines are arms under the Second Amendment and have been in common use for years, they can be regulated because they are "particularly dangerous." Last summer, the Supreme Court sidestepped multiple gun-related disputes soon after it issued a ruling that upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. In other action on pending appeals Friday, the court decided against taking up a significant election case involving mail-in ballots in the battleground state of Pennsylvania that pitted Republicans against Democrats. The decision leaves intact a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that said voters who send mail-in ballots that are flagged as defective can then file a separate provision in-person ballot. The Republican National Committee was seeking to overturn the 2024 state court decision, while the Democratic National Committee was defending it.


Reuters
29 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court rebuffs challenge to Washington, DC's high-capacity gun magazine ban
WASHINGTON, June 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Friday to hear a challenge to the legality of a restriction imposed by Washington, D.C., on large-capacity ammunition magazines in a case that gives the justices a chance to further expand gun rights. The justices turned away an appeal by four men who challenged the law of a lower court's ruling that upheld the Democratic-governed city's ban on virtually all ammunition-feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds. The lower court rejected arguments that the measure violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."


NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
What comes next in the Trump-Musk feud: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, Kristen Welker dives into what comes next in the breakup between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Plus, our Capitol Hill team examines the senators who could make or break Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' And Shannon Pettypiece answers this week's reader question on the U.S.-China trade war. Before we dive into all that, two bits of breaking news this Friday afternoon: Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man whose erroneous deportation to El Salvador gave way to a protracted battle over due process, has been returned to the U.S. to face human smuggling charges in Tennessee. The Supreme Court allowed members of the Department of Government Efficiency to access Social Security Administration data. — Adam Wollner What's next in the feud between Trump and Musk? By Kristen Welker The feud between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump erupted yesterday in an epic clash between the world's richest man and the world's most powerful man — and it's not clear yet where the confrontation will go next. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles told me this morning that there are 'no plans' for a phone call between Trump and Musk today, despite at least one report that it was a possibility. But just because there's nothing on the books doesn't mean the two men won't have an impromptu call. After all, Trump has a personal cellphone where he often talks to everyone from world leaders to reporters. And one administration official told me anything can happen, and they'd like to 'de-escalate a very unfortunate situation.' While the White House may be looking to turn down the temperature, some of the president's allies were quick to go after Musk. Steve Bannon, a former Trump White House adviser, told me the president should 'pull every contract associated with Elon Musk' and start major investigations 'immediately.' Bannon also said, 'Thus spake the ketamine,' in a sign that some of Trump's allies are zeroing in on Musk's alleged drug use. (Musk has said he took ketamine to treat depression.) At stake in all of this is the future of Trump's signature legislation, which includes tax cut extensions, an elimination of tax on tips and overtime, and cuts and changes to federal programs including Medicaid and food stamps. Musk has trashed the 'big, beautiful bill,' arguing that it would balloon the country's debt. Sources from the White House and on Capitol Hill have told me that while Musk's opposition might embolden Republican senators who are already opposed to the measure, Musk is not flipping any more votes to the 'no' column at this point. I'm also told that if these senators had to choose between Trump and Musk, they'd choose Trump every time. We'll talk more about the next steps for Trump's domestic policy bill on 'Meet the Press' this Sunday, with exclusive interviews with Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla. and Cory Booker, D-N.J. Behind the scenes: Trump's team is taking the feud seriously: White House aides scrambled into at least two closed-door meetings Thursday to strategize about whether and how to respond to Musk's social media barrage. Vice President JD Vance was with Trump on Thursday when the tweets began and they spoke multiple times in the afternoon, according to a person familiar with the day's events. Trump encouraged Vance to be diplomatic about Musk if asked about him, the person said. Meanwhile, Trump is considering selling or giving away the red Tesla that he purchased in March, according to a senior White House official. By Sahil Kapur, Julie Tsirkin and Frank Thorp V Amid the back-and-forth between Donald Trump and Elon Musk this week, Senate Republican leaders have been juggling a host of competing demands as they prepare to take up — and make changes to — the House-passed 'big, beautiful bill.' They can ultimately afford to lose just three GOP votes on the Senate floor, assuming all Democrats oppose the package as expected. Here are the senators who could make or break the bill: Rand Paul: He's the only Republican senator who has voted against this legislation every step of the way. He has blasted the spike in military spending, the huge increase in deficits and, in particular, the $5 trillion debt limit hike. Paul does support a key part of the package — an extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts — but he wants to offset it with trillions of dollars in additional spending cuts, on which the GOP has no hope of finding consensus. Susan Collins: The Maine senator is the sole Republican to represent a state that Democrats consistently win at the presidential level. And she faces re-election this year. Her trajectory has been revealing, from supporting the initial budget resolution to voting against the revised version. A key reason for her opposition? Concerns that the Medicaid cuts would harm low-income and older constituents. Lisa Murkowski: When she voted for the budget blueprint in April that kick-started the process of writing the legislation, the Alaska Republican quickly followed it up with a broad set of grievances that will need to be addressed, or she'll be 'unable to support' the final product. That includes the changes to Medicaid, the cost of the tax cuts and the phaseout of clean energy tax credits that benefit her state. Ron Johnson: The Wisconsin Republican has railed against the bill and its estimated $2.4 trillion contribution to the deficit, insisting he can't vote for it as written. He has slammed the idea of a megabill, calling for breaking it up and limiting the debt ceiling hike. Trump asked him to be 'less negative' during a meeting at the White House this week, Johnson said. ✉️ Mailbag: Who loses in a U.S.-China trade war? Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question is on the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China. 'Who is in worse shape if the two countries don't trade any longer?' To answer this, we turned to senior policy reporter Shannon Pettypiece, who has been covering the ins and outs of Trump's tariff agenda. Here's her response: Both the U.S. and China have a lot to lose by cutting off trade ties with each other, but in some ways, not as much as they did before the first wave of China tariffs Trump imposed in 2018. Chinese companies have been shifting production offshore, to neighboring countries like Vietnam and even Mexico, while Chinese officials have worked to boost trade with other trading partners, like the European Union. The share of total Chinese exports to the U.S. has dropped to an estimated 14% in 2024 from 19% in 2018. Across China's entire economy, U.S. exports account for 3% of China's gross domestic product, and a sustained U.S. tariff rate of 60% could reduce China's GDP by 2 percentage points, according to Goldman Sachs. In short, that would be bad for China's economy, but not entirely crippling. China's economy isn't on the strongest footing at the moment. Its growth has slowed since the Covid pandemic and the country is grappling with a collapse in its real estate market, which has wiped out the savings for many Chinese. The U.S. has also been working to lessen its dependence on China in recent years, and U.S. companies have increasingly been shifting their manufacturing out of China. China accounts for about 15% of total U.S. imports, down from about 22% in 2018. But the U.S. is still heavily dependent on China in a number of key areas, like rare earth metals crucial for U.S. manufacturing of cars and defense equipment. About a third of U.S. imports from China are in product categories where the vast majority of those items come from China, according to Goldman Sachs. That means, even a temporary halt to shipments from China could lead to supply chain shortages, like those seen during the Covid pandemic. But who blinks first or offers more concessions in a trade standoff could have just as much to do with politics as economics. China removed term limits on President Xi Jinping in 2018, essentially allowing him to remain in power for life. Meanwhile, the U.S. will have midterm elections next year and another presidential contest in 2028.