Erin Patterson ‘not on trial for being a liar', defence says, as jury asked to consider key questions

The Guardian

3 hours ago

Erin Patterson's barrister has asked the jury to consider whether it's more likely 'that she wanted to kill everyone or wanted to reconnect with her family for the sake of her children', as he continues his closing address in her triple-murder trial.
Colin Mandy SC also told the jury at the Latrobe Valley law courts in Morwell that Patterson is 'not on trial for being a liar', and warned jurors against using 'dangerous and seductive' hindsight reasoning to find her guilty.
Patterson, 50, is charged with three counts of murder and one of attempted murder over the alleged deliberate poisoning of four lunch guests with beef wellingtons served at her house in Leongatha on 29 July 2023.
Patterson has pleaded not guilty to murdering the relatives of her estranged husband, Simon Patterson – his parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and aunt, Heather Wilkinson – and attempting to murder his uncle, Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband.
Mandy said to the jury, in a section of his address where he asked them to consider the evidence about why Patterson's children were not at the lunch: 'what's more likely? That she wanted to kill everyone, or that she wanted to reconnect with her family for the sake of her children'.
Mandy twice said that Patterson was not on trial for being a liar, once in reference to her behaviour after the lunch, and another in reference to misleading her lunch guests about having cancer.
The earlier reference came as Mandy was expanding on what he considered the fifth overarching theme of his closing address: hindsight reasoning. He had flagged there were only expected to be four such themes on Tuesday: the 'flawed approach' taken by the prosecution to the evidence, the honestly mistaken memory of witnesses, the burden of proof, and the duty of fairness incumbent on the prosecution.
'This is not a court of moral judgment, you can't, you shouldn't, take a leap from this lie about a lump on her elbow to finding her guilty of triple murder,' Mandy said.
'Those two things are a long way apart.'
Mandy said the prosecution theory that Patterson lied to her lunch guests about having cancer because she knew the lie would 'die with them', or, as he described it, would take it 'to their graves' was an 'illogical and irrational theory'.
'It's not a good thing, lying about, misleading people about whether you've got cancer, but it's got nothing to do with any intention to kill or to harm them,' Mandy said.
Mandy also said the prosecution theory that Patterson wanted Simon at the lunch so that he could be killed was 'absurd'.
Hindsight reasoning was dangerous and seductive, Mandy said, as it distorted how people evaluated decisions and actions that occurred in the past.
'Whatever Erin Patterson's intention was when she served the meal, is what it was,' he said.
'It's the prosecution's job to prove what the accused actually did, and not to engage in hypothetical comparisons about what you or someone else might do in the same situation.
'Things seem obvious in retrospect, but that's not the right way of approaching it.'
Mandy went on to say that certain evidence can seem sinister in hindsight, and provide a 'false clarity about ambiguous situations'.
He described the prosecution's case in relation to Patterson picking death cap mushrooms in Loch after a post was made on iNaturalist, and then using her dehydrator to dry them, as 'speculation upon speculation upon speculation'.
The court has been told that Patterson's phone data suggested she may have stopped in Loch after the posts were made, and that photos of mushrooms shown on electronic scales appeared consistent with death caps.
The trial continues.