Puzzles and jumps: End game in Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial
Erin Patterson is innocent of triple murder and jurors should not force "puzzle pieces" of evidence together just to find her guilty, her barrister says.
Colin Mandy SC reminded the Victorian Supreme Court jury that prosecutors had to prove the mushroom cook's guilt as he finished his closing address on Thursday.
"The prosecution can't get over that high bar of beyond reasonable doubt," Mandy said in his last remarks in the marathon trial in regional Victoria.
"When you consider the actual evidence and consider it properly... your verdicts on these charges should be not guilty."
Prosecutors allege Patterson, 50, intentionally poisoned her former in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, Gail's sister Heather and Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson with meals laced with death cap mushrooms.
ADVERTISEMENT
Don, Gail and Heather died after consuming the beef Wellington lunch on July 29, 2023, served by Patterson at her home in regional Victoria, while Ian survived.
Mandy told jurors Patterson did not have a motive to kill her lunch guests and prosecutors had been selective with evidence to try to fit their story.
He referred to the jigsaw-puzzle analogy used by crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC, who suggested the individual pieces of evidence could be put together to find Patterson guilty.
Mandy cautioned against that approach.
"You can't force puzzle pieces together — when puzzle pieces don't fit naturally, you know you have the wrong piece in the wrong spot," he said.
"But prosecutors can... force the evidence to fit their theory."
Mandy argued a more appropriate analogy was high jump, adding prosecutors needed to "jump over the high bar" of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Patterson was guilty.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Erin doesn't have to jump any bar at all," he said.
The barrister urged jurors to find that standard had not been met, saying if they believed it was merely possible Patterson intentionally poisoned the beef Wellingtons to kill her guests they should find her not guilty.
If the jurors believed there was a reasonable possibility it was all an accident, Mandy said they would also have to find her not guilty.
Patterson needed to be judged on her intention at the time of the meal, not her actions and lies afterwards, he said.
The defence barrister referred to her false claims of having a cancerous lump on her elbow, as well as lies about having and discarding a dehydrator.
"She did those things because she panicked when confronted by the terrible realisation that her actions had caused the illnesses of the people that she loved," he said.
Mandy also criticised elements of the prosecution case.
ADVERTISEMENT
He maintained Patterson was unwell after the lunch despite allegations she was faking an illness to try to divert blame.
The barrister pointed to her hospital blood test results which showed she had low potassium, elevated haemoglobin and elevated fibrinogen.
Intensive care specialist Andrew Bersten's evidence was those results were consistent with stress in the body relating to a diarrhoeal illness, the court heard.
Mandy rejected the prosecutor's suggestion Patterson had those levels because of psychological stress.
He also claimed prosecutors inaccurately portrayed phone-tower data from when Patterson discharged herself from Leongatha Hospital.
She left the emergency department shortly after 8am on July 31, two days after the lunch, and did not return to the hospital for more than an hour.
Prosecutors alleged her phone connected to the Outtrim base station in that time period, which was consistent with Patterson driving along the Bass Highway.
ADVERTISEMENT
That indicated she did not go home after leaving the hospital, as she had claimed, the crown said.
Mandy urged the jury to reject that suggesting, saying the evidence showed Patterson's phone connected to the Outtrim base station for less than three minutes.
The jury was sent home after he finished his closing address.
They will return to court on Tuesday to hear Justice Christopher Beale's final directions before beginning deliberations.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
10 hours ago
- 1News
Puzzles and jumps: End game in Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial
Erin Patterson is innocent of triple murder and jurors should not force "puzzle pieces" of evidence together just to find her guilty, her barrister says. Colin Mandy SC reminded the Victorian Supreme Court jury that prosecutors had to prove the mushroom cook's guilt as he finished his closing address on Thursday. "The prosecution can't get over that high bar of beyond reasonable doubt," Mandy said in his last remarks in the marathon trial in regional Victoria. "When you consider the actual evidence and consider it properly... your verdicts on these charges should be not guilty." Prosecutors allege Patterson, 50, intentionally poisoned her former in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, Gail's sister Heather and Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson with meals laced with death cap mushrooms. ADVERTISEMENT Don, Gail and Heather died after consuming the beef Wellington lunch on July 29, 2023, served by Patterson at her home in regional Victoria, while Ian survived. Mandy told jurors Patterson did not have a motive to kill her lunch guests and prosecutors had been selective with evidence to try to fit their story. He referred to the jigsaw-puzzle analogy used by crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC, who suggested the individual pieces of evidence could be put together to find Patterson guilty. Mandy cautioned against that approach. "You can't force puzzle pieces together — when puzzle pieces don't fit naturally, you know you have the wrong piece in the wrong spot," he said. "But prosecutors can... force the evidence to fit their theory." Mandy argued a more appropriate analogy was high jump, adding prosecutors needed to "jump over the high bar" of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Patterson was guilty. ADVERTISEMENT "Erin doesn't have to jump any bar at all," he said. The barrister urged jurors to find that standard had not been met, saying if they believed it was merely possible Patterson intentionally poisoned the beef Wellingtons to kill her guests they should find her not guilty. If the jurors believed there was a reasonable possibility it was all an accident, Mandy said they would also have to find her not guilty. Patterson needed to be judged on her intention at the time of the meal, not her actions and lies afterwards, he said. The defence barrister referred to her false claims of having a cancerous lump on her elbow, as well as lies about having and discarding a dehydrator. "She did those things because she panicked when confronted by the terrible realisation that her actions had caused the illnesses of the people that she loved," he said. Mandy also criticised elements of the prosecution case. ADVERTISEMENT He maintained Patterson was unwell after the lunch despite allegations she was faking an illness to try to divert blame. The barrister pointed to her hospital blood test results which showed she had low potassium, elevated haemoglobin and elevated fibrinogen. Intensive care specialist Andrew Bersten's evidence was those results were consistent with stress in the body relating to a diarrhoeal illness, the court heard. Mandy rejected the prosecutor's suggestion Patterson had those levels because of psychological stress. He also claimed prosecutors inaccurately portrayed phone-tower data from when Patterson discharged herself from Leongatha Hospital. She left the emergency department shortly after 8am on July 31, two days after the lunch, and did not return to the hospital for more than an hour. Prosecutors alleged her phone connected to the Outtrim base station in that time period, which was consistent with Patterson driving along the Bass Highway. ADVERTISEMENT That indicated she did not go home after leaving the hospital, as she had claimed, the crown said. Mandy urged the jury to reject that suggesting, saying the evidence showed Patterson's phone connected to the Outtrim base station for less than three minutes. The jury was sent home after he finished his closing address. They will return to court on Tuesday to hear Justice Christopher Beale's final directions before beginning deliberations.
RNZ News
13 hours ago
- RNZ News
Rosey Heurea jailed for stealing more than $12k in goods during Hamilton crime spree
By Catherine Hutton, Open Justice reporter of Photo: Rawpixel Ltd A brazen shoplifter embarked on a lengthy crime spree that involved her carrying a small child while stealing clothing, threatening to stab those who tried to stop her, and striking a worker. Rosey Heurea was already on bail when she was caught shoplifting 19 times last year, helping herself to more than $12k in stolen goods. This week, the 24-year-old appeared in the Wellington District Court via audio-visual link from prison custody. She was sentenced on 30 charges, including 22 of theft, with 10 of those thefts being worth more than $1000, and six of aggravated assault. She also faced one count each of possession of an offensive weapon and a breach of intensive supervision. Heurea wore a grey prison-issue tracksuit and kept her head down during the hearing. The court heard that between June and November last year, she took groceries, beauty products and clothing from Hamilton stores, including Rebel Sport, the Warehouse, the Chemist Warehouse, Woolworths and Countdown supermarkets. At times, she acted alone or with the help of others. Judge Tania Warburton noted the getaway cars weren't registered in Heurea's name and on several occasions, black tape was used to cover the registration plates. On six occasions, the shoplifting escalated to violence, including once when Heurea and a co-defendant tried to leave the Chemist Warehouse, each carrying a basket of goods they hadn't paid for. As staff attempted to stop them, Heurea struck one staff member before trying to rip the basket from the hands of another staffer. The baskets were eventually retrieved and the pair was escorted from the store. At other times, Heurea stole clothing from Rebel Sport, telling staff "I will kill you all" and threatening to stab those who challenged her. At one point, Heurea and a co-defendant taunted staff, telling them, "you couldn't get us". Staff, aware of Heurea's threats and fearing for their safety, let her leave with the stolen clothing. On 18 November Heurea walked into a Rebel Sport store carrying a child. After being asked to leave, she walked out of the store carrying a large quantity of clothing. Still holding the child's hand, Heurea walked to the carpark and told a staff member she would stab them if they followed her any further. Later that day, Heurea returned to the same store and was recognised. After picking up clothing, she was asked to leave but told the person "f*** off, get away, don't touch me". When told police were looking for her, Heurea responded: "She'd better make it worth it". At her sentencing, Judge Warburton said the aggravating factors included the alleged threats to staff, the violence, that she'd involved a child in her offending and the volume of stolen property. Photo: RNZ / Richard Tindiller Adopting a starting point of 26 months jail, the judge added an uplift for the number of charges, the assault and the possession of a knife. That gave a total starting point of 31 months jail. Turning to Heurea's personal circumstances, the judge noted that Heurea committed some of the offences while on bail. She also had four previous convictions for assault and 12 convictions for dishonesty. Heurea, who was from a supportive family, had begun a relationship with a destructive and volatile gang member when she was young, the judge said. "Most of your negative associates are linked to that gang." However, Heurea said she had ended the relationship and told a probation officer she regretted the offending. Heurea's lawyer Gerard Walsh sought a short sentence of imprisonment. "We're not saying it's not jail today - it is," he said, adding that his client planned to move from Waikato to Nelson when released to live with her grandmother. Given that Heurea would be on a benefit once released from jail, Walsh suggested reparations of about $3000, acknowledging that some people would find that offensive. The judge said imposing the full reparation would cause Heurea undue hardship. She ordered $2200 in reparations, with varying amounts to be paid to the five chain stores. Heurea was jailed for 21 months. While that made her eligible for a community-based sentence, Heurea said she'd rather finish her time in custody, where she's spent the past eight months. Upon her release, she would be banned from using alcohol or drugs and would be subjected to regular testing, the judge said. *This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Defence slams 'absurd' theories in mushroom case
Prosecutors allege Patterson, 50, intentionally poisoned her former in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, Gail's sister Heather and Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson. Don, Gail and Heather all died after consuming the July 29, 2023 beef Wellington lunch served by Patterson at her home in regional Victoria, while Ian survived. She has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and one count of attempted murder. Prosecutors alleged Patterson made up the cancer claim so there would be a reason to have guests over for lunch. But Mr Mandy argued that proposition was "illogical and irrational" as the guests were only told the lie after the beef Wellingtons were eaten. "If this was a ruse, there was no need to have the conversation because the deed - on the crown case, the consumption of the food - had already happened," he said. "There was absolutely no need for Erin to say anything about cancer if that was a ruse." The defence barrister conceded it was a "stupid" lie but it was made because Patterson was embarrassed about her plans to undergo weight-loss procedures. Although she never had any surgery, Mr Mandy told the jury Patterson did have an appointment scheduled with a clinic that performed liposuction. The barrister also criticised the prosecution's assertion that Patterson made a fifth deadly beef Wellington parcel for her ex-husband Simon. He pulled out of the lunch the night before and prosecutors alleged Patterson intended to kill him as well. "We say that is an absurd theory," Mr Mandy said. That would mean Patterson was planning to kill her children's father and their grandparents, and she would likely be removed as a parent, he said. "There's no possible prospect Erin wanted to destroy her whole world, her whole life," Mr Mandy said. The barrister also urged the jury to reject Ian Wilkinson's evidence about mismatched plates being used at the lunch. Mr Wilkinson told the jury Patterson served her own meal on a orange-tan coloured plate, while her guests all received their beef Wellingtons on grey plates. Mr Mandy told the jury Mr Wilkinson must have been honestly mistaken because the evidence from Simon and the Patterson children showed Erin did not own those plates. A police raid of the Leongatha house also did not locate the plates as Mr Wilkinson described, he said. Mr Mandy also suggested it was illogical to have the safe meal distinguished by its serving plate rather than by marking the pastry before it was cooked. He maintained Patterson also ate the poisoned beef Wellington but she had less-severe symptoms because she was younger, she weighed more and she threw up after the lunch. "Those combination of reasons is why we suggest Erin would have reacted much better from consuming the same meal," the defence barrister said. Mr Mandy raised the issue of an argument Patterson had in December 2022 with her ex-husband Simon over child support and the comments she made to Facebook friends about her in-laws. In those messages, Patterson stated "this family, I swear to f***ing God" and "I'm sick of this shit, I want nothing to do with them". Mr Mandy said she regretted using the words but the tension was an aberration from her usual interactions with her in-laws. The trial continues on Thursday.
