Erin Patterson makes new claims about fatal beef Wellington lunch - as she accuses the lone survivor of lying
Accused killer Erin Patterson has refuted claims she told her lunch guests at an ill-fated lunch that she had been diagnosed with cancer.
Entering the witness box for a second day on Thursday, Patterson further claimed she had never asked her guests over on the pretext of discussing with them a medical issue.
The 50-year-old has pleaded not guilty to the murders of Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson.
They died after consuming death cap mushrooms served in beef Wellingtons during lunch at her Leongatha home on July 29, 2023.
In opening the trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria, sitting in the Latrobe Valley Magistrates' Court in Victoria's east, Patterson's barrister Colin Mandy, SC told the jury on day one there was no dispute with the prosecution about how and why the guests came be at the lunch.
'It is not in dispute that Erin Patterson invited the guests over for lunch to her house in Leongatha. It is not in dispute that she invited her husband, Simon, over as well because she said she wanted to discuss a health issue that she was concerned about,' he said then.
'That is not in issue. The fact that she's never been diagnosed with cancer is not in issue.'
But on Thursday, Patterson told the court she had never mentioned anything to her in-laws about a medical issue to entice them to accept her lunch invite.
The jury heard previously evidence from child protection worker Katrina Cripps who claimed on August 1, 2023 at the Monash Medical Centre Patterson told her she had invited her guests over to discuss a medical issue.
'I wouldn't have put it like that because that wasn't the reason I invited people,' Patterson told prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers under cross examination.
'Ms Cripps is wrong, is she?' Dr Rogers asked.
'Yes,' Patterson responded.
'You deny that?' Dr Rogers continued.
'I didn't say that to her. I told her I had invited Don and Gail and Ian and Heather to lunch and I did confirm we had discussed some medical issues, but I did not tell her that was the reason for the lunch or the reason for the invitation, because it was not,' Patterson said.
The jury had heard evidence in the opening days of the trial from Pastor Ian Wilkinson, who was the only person to survive the deadly lunch.
Mr Wilkinson claimed Patterson told lunch guests she had undertaken a diagnostic test that showed a spot on the scan that was a tumour.
'I remember him saying that in his evidence, but I don't believe I said that,' Patterson said.
'Might you have said it?' Dr Rogers asked.
'I don't think so, no,' Patterson said.
Slowly dying at Korumburra Hospital after the lunch, the court heard Don Patterson also claimed Patterson mentioned she had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer.
The court heard Don had told Simon: 'Mum doesn't want me to tell you this. It's about what Erin talked to us about at the lunch.'
'Donald asked if Simon thought he should tell him and Simon said 'yes'. Donald then said, 'Erin told us that she had tests for a medical term relating to something on her elbow 'and that they'd found ovarian cancer. She will probably need chemo and some surgery and she wasn't sure how to tell the kids',' Dr Rogers said at the trial's opening.
Patterson told the jury she denied telling her lunch guests she had been diagnosed with cancer.
'I don't think I put it that precisely, no,' she said.
'Well, how did you put it?' Dr Rogers asked.
'I don't remember saying I'd had a diagnosis,' she responded.
In what became nothing short of a heated exchange, Dr Rogers bombarded Patterson with questions suggesting she told repeated lies about the deadly lunch.
'You told this lie, I suggest, as part of your efforts to get the lunch guests, and Simon, to attend your lunch; correct or incorrect?' Dr Rogers asked.
'Incorrect,' came the response.
'I suggest that you never thought you would have to account for this lie about having cancer because you thought that the lunch guests would die?' Dr Rogers said.
'That's not true.'
'And your lie would never be found out; correct or incorrect?'
'That's not true,' Patterson insisted.
The trial before Justice Christoper Beale continues.
.
I
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Major HIV breakthrough forces hidden fragments of the virus to emerge so it can be cleared from the body
Experts could have found a way to be one step closer to curing HIV for good. Researchers in Australia has developed a new treatment that forces hidden fragments of the virus - normally concealed within human cells - to emerge and expose themselves to the immune system. The breakthrough could enable the body, aided by antiviral drugs, to detect and destroy any lingering viral reservoirs. HIV has remained incurable because the virus can integrate itself into a cell's DNA, laying dormant and undetectable to both medication and immune defenses. Scientists said they've created a nanoparticle capable of delivering genetic instructions to infected cells, prompting them to produce a signal that reveals the virus's presence. Dr Paula Cevaal of the Doherty Institute and co-author of the study told The Guardian that the feat was 'previously thought impossible'. Cevaal said: 'In the field of biomedicine, many things eventually don't make it into the clinic, that is the unfortunate truth; I don't want to paint a prettier picture than what is the reality. 'But in terms of specifically the field of HIV cure, we have never seen anything close to as good as what we are seeing, in terms of how well we are able to reveal this virus. 'So, from that point of view, we're very hopeful that we are also able to see this type of response in an animal, and that we could eventually do this in humans.' The discovery was first revealed in the journal Nature Communications, where researchers said they were initially so astonished that they had to rerun the tests. Further research would be needed to determine whether revealing the virus would be enough to trigger an immune response, with tests only being carried out in the lab. It could still take years before clinical trials for the drug began, when it would have to go through rigorous testing before reaching consumers. However, the advance represents another step forward for the 1.2 million Americans currently living with an HIV infection - for which they took drugs daily. An estimated 31,800 people were believed to be infected every year, although that's a 12 per cent decline on five years ago. Globally, nearly 40 million people have the virus. The new nanoparticle's based on mRNA technology, the same as was used in covid vaccines made by Pfizer and other vaccine manufacturers. In their paper, the scientists revealed that they could deliver mRNA instructions to cells using the nanoparticle. The mRNA then instruct cells to generate substances that reveal the presence of HIV, but only if the virus was present. The study done in the laboratory was carried out in cells donated by HIV patients.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
China has a stranglehold on the world's rare-earths supply chain. Can Australia break it?
Weeks after China retaliated against Donald Trump's tariffs by suspending exports of a range of rare-earth elements and related high-powered magnets, Ford was forced to pause a production line in Chicago. Days later, executives from other major carmakers, including General Motors and Toyota, told the White House their suppliers faced an impending shortage of necessary materials that could shut assembly lines. The speed of the fallout shows just how reliant the world has become on China's mineral supply chain and its production of rare-earth magnets , used in everything from wind turbines and medical devices to combustion and electric motors, and ballistic missile guidance systems. The Albanese government believes it can help break China's dominance, but experts say the challenge is enormous. Prof John Mavrogenes, from the Australian National University's research school of earth sciences, says the government needs to dramatically boost its investment in skills, education and technology if it wants to develop the domestic capability to manufacture rare-earth products, namely magnets. 'The question over who can deal with the processing and the making of magnets is a really big one, and quite hard to get your head around because we've let China just take that business over,' says Mavrogenes. 'The question is capability. Who's ready to ramp up if we need to? One country that I know isn't ready is Australia. 'We need so many metallurgists and chemical engineers, and we need them tomorrow. We probably need 10, 20, 50 times more than we're producing.' China is a large producer of rare earths and has near-complete control over the refining processes needed to make the minerals useful. It produces about 90% of rare-earth magnets, completing its control of the supply chain. It has become a very efficient, cost-effective provider of rare-earth materials, although given some of the historical environmental damage caused by their extraction and processing, it has paid a price. Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads Economies around the world have benefited from China's rare earths industry. The system seemed to work, until it didn't. In 2010, China starved Japan's hi-tech manufacturing industries by halting shipments of rare earths for about two months, after a dispute over a detained Chinese fishing trawler captain. In late 2023, China formalised a ban on the export of rare-earth separation technologies. Two months ago, China placed export restrictions on seven strategically chosen rare earths and the end product, magnets. While the recent curbs were sparked by Trump's tariffs, Beijing applied the export controls to all countries. It has implemented a new export permit system, choking the world of supply. Rare-earth magnets need a lot of two light rare-earth elements, neodymium and praseodymium, which are not subject to China's export curbs. But more powerful, heat-resistant magnets used in automotive and defence industries tend to require dysprosium or terbium, which are called heavy rare earths because of their atomic weights. Dysprosium and terbium are on China's list of suspended rare earths, as is samarium, which is also used in hi-tech applications. Until recently, the desire to develop a rare earths sector has been pitched by governments as a means to fuel the transition to clean energy technology and electric vehicles. Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion But now, it's also taken on the pressing aim of shoring up supplies of materials required for national interests, including defence. Australia, rich in resources, is seen as a natural competitor to China that could break into its rare-earths supply chain. The Albanese government has openly discussed this desire for well over two years, and officials have crisscrossed the country, from Dubbo in New South Wales to Western Australia and Northern Territory, offering grants, funding and other assistance in order to develop bona fide domestic processing capabilities. Notably, the government has backed the development of Iluka's Eneabba project in WA, which is designed to come online in 2027 and produce several rare-earth oxides, including dysprosium and terbium. Iluka's chief executive, Tom O'Leary, told shareholders last month the 'current industry is unsustainable, owing to China's monopoly position and approach'. 'It is a fact that rare earths are among very few metals where China has demonstrated a preparedness to withhold supply to achieve political or strategic objectives,' O'Leary said. Another Australian company, Lynas, is a step ahead, given it has some rare-earths processing capabilities out of Kalgoorlie. It relies on further refining at its factory in Malaysia, which recently became the first to separate heavy rare-earth elements, primarily dysprosium and terbium, outside China. The Labor government has also proposed setting up a strategic stockpile of critical minerals. While the details of this plan are scant, such a stockpile, by building up supplies, could provide pricing certainty for projects affected by the current monopoly market. The government's various funding announcements show that Australia is focusing on the initial extraction and refining of rare earths, but not on the process of turning that material into metals and, in turn, manufacturing magnets. There are mixed views on whether that is the right approach, given the strategy falls short of developing an end-to-end rare-earths supply chain in Australia, independent of China, as some had hoped for. There has also been limited discussion of the potential for magnet recycling in Australia. Rowena Smith, the chief executive of Australian Strategic Materials, says it is more realistic for Australia to partner with overseas magnet producers outside China than to quickly develop capabilities to produce magnets. 'The opportunity for Australia is to play to our strengths upstream and integrate with allied partners into those emerging magnet manufacturers,' says Smith. 'It would be ambitious to get this supply chain up rapidly in Australia, because you need every piece of the supply chain to come online simultaneously.'
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Confusion and chaos reign in Tasmanian parliament with no endgame in sight
Craig Garland, the fisherman turned maverick independent MP from Tasmania's north-western corner, summed it up best when he told state parliament on Thursday morning he was 'a bit confused'. Garland wasn't confused about what he was doing – he calmly backed a no-confidence motion in the Liberal premier, Jeremy Rockliff. But he expressed doubts about how the Tasmanian parliament got here, and what lay ahead. Based on the reaction online and on talkback radio, many Tasmanians agree. From the outside – and to many on the inside – the events in parliament this week look like a form of collective madness that was entirely avoidable and, despite all the strong words, largely pointless. The vote of no-confidence in Rockliff, moved by the Labor leader Dean Winter, passed on Thursday afternoon by the barest of margins: 18-17. It has pushed the state to the brink of a fresh election just 15 months since the last one. Bizarrely, the state finds itself in this position despite all the major players – Liberals, Labor and the Greens – declaring loudly that an election is a bad idea and should not happen. Each had the power to prevent one. Which is not to say all are equally to blame. We need to briefly rewind 15 months. On 23 March last year, Tasmanians chose what some have called a rainbow parliament, and others have described as chaos: 14 Liberals, 10 Labor, five Greens, three MPs from the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) and three independents. No party was close to the 18 seats needed for a majority government, but the Liberals had a clear plurality of support. Winter declined to try to lead the state despite the crossbench being made up largely of progressive MPs, declaring he would never deal with the Greens. Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads Rockliff won a promise of support on confidence and budget supply from JLN and the independent David O'Byrne, a former Labor leader, who would prefer an ALP government but wanted the parliament to work. In the months that followed JLN fell apart and the government's position became more precarious. The sole remaining JLN MP, Andrew Jenner, refused to vote for a budget released in September, breaking his commitment to ensure the government survived. The then treasurer and deputy premier, Michael Ferguson, was forced to resign and move to the backbench when he faced what would have been a successful no-confidence vote over mismanagement of new Spirit of Tasmania ferries. And the Greens moved two no-confidence motions in Rockliff – one over a shelved gambling harm minimisation promise, the other over a controversial AFL stadium planned for Macquarie Point, on Hobart's waterfront. Despite the noise, the premier appeared relatively safe. Just last month, Labor argued the state needed a period of stability. That changed on Tuesday, when Winter surprised observers by tabling a no-confidence motion at the end of a budget reply speech, and declaring he would move it when it was clear it had enough support. It was a dare to both the crossbench and the government. But it was a tactic without a clear endgame. The motion was ostensibly about the budget, arguing Rockliff had wrecked the state's finances, planned to sell public assets and had mismanaged the ferries. Handed down five days earlier, the budget had been widely criticised for increasing debt and spending, and failing to provide solutions to structural problems. Some government supporters said it was the worst they had seen. But the opposition leader did not make a case for what Labor would do differently, and did not make a pitch to become premier if the no-confidence motion carried. The goal was to either push the Greens to side with Rockliff to prevent chaos or, more likely, claim the premier's scalp by forcing the Liberals to replace him, almost certainly with someone less popular. Neither happened. The motion quickly won backing on Tuesday from Garland, Jenner, and the independent Kristie Johnston (who had backed earlier no-confidence motions). The Greens declared their support after meeting on Wednesday morning. But the Greens did not want the motion to just be about the budget. The minor party tried to amend it to include a rejection of the stadium – one of the biggest issues dominating public debate in the state over the past year given the likely $1bn-plus cost, and because admission of the Tasmania Devils to the AFL hinges on it being built. Their leader, Rosalie Woodruff, also offered to work with Labor to try to form an alternative government. Both steps were rejected. The Greens knew they would be. They backed the motion anyway. Some commentary over the past week assumed the motion would lead to a Labor-Greens minority government. But the relationship between the two parties in the state is hostile, and they are ideologically miles apart. Winter's defining position since becoming Labor leader last year has been to argue for 'traditional industries' – including native forest logging, salmon farming and mining – and to reject suggestions he would work with the minor party. Winter did not speak with crossbenchers before tabling the no-confidence motion, and Labor and the Greens mostly voted against Rockliff for different reasons. Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion There is deep history to this. Labor and the Greens fell out after governing in partnership from 2010 to 2014, a period in which two Greens held ministries. The relationship has become more distant under Winter, who is close to the former premier Paul Lennon, an assertively pro-industry and anti-green figure. It doesn't take much analysis to realise this raises questions about whether Labor can form government anytime soon, given it has lost four straight elections and has less than a third of seats in the state's lower house. It continues to argue it could win a majority. Labor and the Greens are also sharply divided over the stadium, which has become the most politically charged issue facing the state and driven significant public resentment against the government. Polls suggest a majority of the public are opposed to it in every electorate, especially in the state's parochial north. But the stadium has the support of both major parties – not least because neither wants to stand accused of killing the long-held dream of a Tasmanian AFL team, which still has overwhelming public support. There is a strong case that a new stadium will be needed in the state's capital for the club to be a success. But the state government spectacularly stuffed up the argument. It signed a lopsided deal under which the AFL pays a meagre $15m of the direct funding for the stadium's construction. Predictably, the cost of the stadium to taxpayers has blown out beyond Rockliff's initial pledge it would be capped at $375m. And the site itself is controversial. The premier has broken promises on the issue, most recently trying to push through legislation to circumvent the independent-heavy upper house from potentially blocking the stadium. Meanwhile, the AFL has refused to budge from its line – no stadium at Macquarie Point, no team. Critics including the Greens accuse the government of caving to AFL pressure, point to crises facing the state on housing and health, and argue a stadium cannot be justified. Some have claimed, without evidence, the AFL could be forced to redraw the deal. Some vocal critics don't care if there is a team. But that's not where most of the public is. It's a mess that continues to hurt the government, but doesn't necessarily win support for Labor. As the no-confidence motion was debated, Tasmania Devils executive Kath McCann broke down at a press conference as she argued the future of the club was uncertain if Rockliff was removed. While it wasn't the subject of the no-confidence motion, you could make a decent case that the stadium – including the AFL's refusal to accommodate genuinely held Tasmanian concerns – will cost Rockliff his job. But that hasn't happened yet, and it is not clear if it will. The Liberals have backed Rockliff, for now at least, rather than replace him with one of a list of potential contenders. Liberal MPs have argued the budget was backed by the government, not just Rockliff, and supported his push for an early election if the no-confidence motion was passed. They may yet change their minds. Business leaders warn an election would hurt confidence and stall investment. Some senior Liberal figures have urged the parliamentary party elect a new leader to avoid forcing Tasmanians vote again. The parliament has to return on Tuesday to pass a short-term supply bill before Rockliff plans to speak with the governor, Barbara Baker, so they have a few days to work it out. If there is an election, it is difficult to see either major party approaching a majority of seats. The most recent ERMS poll had Labor on 31% support, ahead of the Liberals, who fell five percentage points to just 29%. But 37% said they preferred someone else. This doesn't bode well for the major parties, which have struggled to come to grips with the reality of an expanded 35-member parliament in which no one has control. The Liberals failed to maintain the support of enough MPs. Labor has done little to develop a relationship with the crossbench. Tasmanians might soon tell them that's not good enough, and to try again.
