Erin Patterson had no reason to murder in-laws with toxic mushrooms, defence tells jury

Australia Broadcast Center

5 hours ago

Erin Patterson's defence barrister has told the jury in her triple-murder trial that the "devoted" mother had no motive to deprive her children of their "wonderful" grandparents.
Ms Patterson, 50, has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and one of attempted murder over a beef Wellington lunch she hosted at her regional Victorian home in 2023.
The trial of Erin Patterson, who stands accused of using a poisoned meal to murder three relatives, continues.
Look back at how Tuesday's hearing unfolded in our live blog.
To stay up to date with this story, subscribe to ABC News.
On Monday, prosecutors told the jury Ms Patterson had engaged in four substantial deceptions as part of the alleged murder plot.
Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC said these were a lie to the guests about cancer, the "secretion" of death cap mushrooms in a "nourishing meal" of individually parcelled beef Wellingtons, feigned illness after the lunch and a sustained cover-up as guests fell critically ill.
On Tuesday morning, Dr Rogers wrapped up her closing address by telling the jury a fifth deception had been played upon it, when the accused spun a "carefully constructed narrative" in court in a bid to fit the evidence against her.
She said "perhaps the starkest" of these was Ms Patterson's evidence about plans to undergo gastric-bypass surgery a few months after the lunch.
During her evidence, Ms Patterson told the court she had booked an appointment for gastric-bypass surgery at a clinic in Melbourne and had lied to relatives about potential cancer treatment as a cover story.
When she was told in cross-examination that the clinic did not offer gastric-band surgery, Ms Patterson said she must have been "mistaken" and she had also been considering liposuction.
"There's no way that the accused's earlier evidence can be twisted to fit that new claim," Dr Rogers told the jury.
The prosecution alleged several other lies were told by Ms Patterson in the period surrounding the lunch, including admitted lies to police about owning a food dehydrator and foraging for mushrooms.
"Erin Patterson told so many lies it's hard to keep up with them," Dr Rogers said.
Dr Rogers told the jury Ms Patterson was "not a credible witness" and significant parts of the defence case that rested solely on her evidence should be closely scrutinised.
She also told the jury it should disregard any claim from the defence that Ms Patterson's actions after the lunch were the result of "innocent panic" rather than a sustained cover-up.
The prosecutor said any parent who believed their children may have consumed death cap mushrooms would "move mountains" to get them to hospital, in contrast to Ms Patterson's initial reluctance to take her children out of school.
Dr Rogers also told the jury that Ms Patterson's venting to Facebook friends about her in-laws showed that the accused was "leading a duplicitous life when it came to the Pattersons".
"She presented one side, while expressing contrary beliefs to others," Dr Rogers said.
In closing her address, Dr Rogers told jurors they should make their deliberations based on the facts before them.
"You may not want to believe that anyone could be capable of doing what the accused has done," she said, describing the alleged actions as "horrible", "cold" and "beyond comprehension".
"But look at the evidence, don't let your emotional reaction dictate your verdict one way or the other."
In his closing address, defence barrister Colin Mandy SC told the jury the prosecution had been "cherry picking" evidence that suited their case, while "disregarding inconvenient truths" that challenged it.
He told the jury if they believed there was a reasonable possibility that death cap mushrooms were added to the meal accidentally and a reasonable possibility that Ms Patterson did not intend to kill or cause serious injury to her guests, then they should find her not guilty.
The lawyer said the prosecution case lacked a motive, which would usually be "fundamental" to proving the required element in the charges of intent to kill or seriously injure.
Mr Mandy told the jury there had been evidence during the trial that demonstrated a warm relationship existed between his client and her in-laws.
"Erin Patterson had a motive to keep these people in her world so that they could keep supporting her and her children," he said.
"And there's absolutely no doubt that Don and Gail had a great relationship with [their grandchildren] … absolutely no doubt that Erin was devoted to her children.
Mr Mandy told the jury it should regard a period of tension that arose between Erin and Simon Patterson over financial matters as a "brief spat" about child support which was "resolved amicably" before too long.
Mr Mandy said there was no proof to support the idea that this tension could have formed a reason for Ms Patterson murdering her husband's parents and aunt and uncle.
"It's an unsatisfactory piece of evidence," he said.
Mr Mandy told the jury an "intelligent person carefully planning a murder" in the way alleged by the prosecution would know that they and the meal they had prepared would come "under suspicion" and that they would be in the "spotlight".
He said Ms Patterson's actions after the lunch — including disposing of the dehydrator at a tip and paying with her own bank card — were born out of panic and not guilt.
"If you're planning a murder, what's the one thing you really should plan to dispose of? That's the murder weapon," Mr Mandy said.
He suggested to the jury that if the deadly meal had been premeditated, Ms Patterson "would've disposed of [the dehydrator] months before and never told anyone she had one".
"It speaks volumes about her state of mind," he said.
Mr Mandy is expected to continue delivering his closing address for the defence on Wednesday.