Defence highlights a lack of motive in 'flawed prosecution' as the epic trial of Erin Patterson draws to its gripping final hours

Daily Mail​

5 hours ago

The prosecution case against Erin Patterson has been branded 'flawed' during a final onslaught by her defence.
As the trial within the Latrobe Valley Law Courts entered its eighth week, Patterson's barrister Colin Mandy, SC finally had his chance to attack the prosecution case that aims to put her behind bars for decades.
Patterson, 50, 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.
Only Pastor Ian Wilkinson survived the lunch, in what Crown prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers, SC on Monday suggested was a big mistake.
Finally on his feet before the jury to offer Patterson's defence, Mr Mandy kicked-off his closing address by tearing apart the prosecutor's case.
'I want to start by addressing you on some overarching themes which we'll return to throughout this address and the first of those is a flawed approach by the prosecution in the way that they have analysed the evidence,' Mr Mandy began.
'The prosecutor has just made an argument to you. That's not evidence. The prosecution has referred, we say, selectively to the evidence, choosing the bits they like to suit their theory, in a very deliberate way, and then arguing to you that you should accept those bits that they like, while they don't draw your attention to the bits that they don't like.'
Mr Mandy accused the prosecution of 'cherry picking' evidence that fit its narrative while ignoring other 'crucial' evidence.
'Their approach is this: working from the assumption that Erin Patterson is guilty of these crimes, pick and choose the evidence that fits that theory, and then tie it all together in an attempt to present a coherent narrative and ignore the things that don't fit,' Mr Mandy said.
'So they have constructed that case theory by, as I say, picking and choosing evidence while ignoring the context. Cherry-picking convenient fragments, while discarding inconvenient truths.'
Earlier, Dr Rogers had described Patterson as a person who just could not resist the urge to tell anyone who listened lies.
'In the lead up to the lunch and in the periods after the lunch, Erin Patterson told so many lies it's hard to keep track of them. She has told lies upon lies because she knew the truth would implicate her,' Dr Rogers told the jury in the morning.
While Dr Rogers took the jury on Monday through what she described as 'four calculated deceptions' Patterson embarked upon, she outlined a 'fifth deception' on Tuesday.
'The deception she has tried to play on you, the jury, with her untruthful evidence,' Dr Rogers said.
'When she knew her lies had been uncovered, she came up with a carefully constructed narrative to fit with the evidence - almost.
'There are some inconsistencies that she just cannot account for so, she ignores them, says she can't remember those conversations, or says other people are just wrong, even her own children.'
In closing her address, Dr Rogers argued that Patterson deliberately poisoned her guests, pointing to her inconsistent statements and alleged lies.
She claimed Patterson's actions, such as dumping a dehydrator and wiping her phone, were calculated to hide incriminating evidence and stressed that motive was not required to prove murder.
While Mr Mandy agreed the prosecution indeed did not need to prove Patterson had motive to murder her guests, he suggested it did need to prove she had 'murderous intent'.
'That's an element of the offence of murder: intention and they have to prove that Erin - that's what Erin Patterson meant to do,' Mr Mandy said,
'So they don't have to prove there was a motive, that's not an element. We're all agreed about that. But obviously enough proof of a motive, or the fact of a motive, can be very important to intention.'
Mr Mandy said his client had no reason to murder her lunch guests.
'So our submission to you that to prove the intention to kill or cause really serious injury to four good people who were important in Erin's life, the prosecution has to be able to demonstrate a motive or provide evidence of one,' he said.
'And if they don't, then you might think they fall short of being able to prove intention as a matter of logic and common sense. Without a motive, you're left guessing about the most important element of the offence in this trial and that's intention.'
Mr Mandy said not only did his client have no motive to kill her guests, but had an 'anti-motive'.
'Erin Patterson, for instance, putting Simon's name on the title to Mount Waverley on the title to Gibson Street in Leongatha, long after they had separated. Still voluntarily treating their assets as joint assets,' he said.
'Then there is all the other evidence about the Patterson relationship, closeness between Erin and Don.
'Don tutoring (his grandson). Don hanging out with (his grandson) and doing science experiments not long before the lunch.
'Don and Gail coming around to the house on 24 June and having lunch with them and how well she, that is Erin and Don got on, with the special connection that they shared that Simon Patterson told you about.'
Mr Mandy said Patterson was devoted to her children and would never harm the people who meant so much to them.
'Erin Patterson had a motive to keep these people in her world so that they could keep supporting her and her children, especially her children, and there is absolutely no doubt that Don and Gail had a great relationship with (their grandchildren), no doubt about that,' he said.
'Absolutely no doubt that Erin was devoted to her children. Why would she take wonderful, active, loving grandparents away from her own children?'
Mr Mandy refuted the prosecution claims his client had meticulously planned the alleged crime.
'An intelligent person, carefully planning a murder would know that if you poison four people at a lunch at your house, and you poison them so badly, carefully administering a fatal dose of poison designed to kill them all at the same time, the meal that you cooked will be under suspicion,' he said.
'There's absolutely no way of avoiding that. It is inevitable that the focus will be on the cook very, very quickly.'
Mr Mandy suggested Patterson had gone out of her way to be fingered for the crime if that were her true intention.
'And that prosecution theory, in our submission to you, doesn't make any sense,' he said.
'Erin Patterson was never, ever thinking that way, because she never intended this to happen and if she had been thinking that way and planning this from April, here are some things that she would never do: buy the dehydrator in her own name, with her own details, using her own credit card from the local store; take photographs of the dehydrator; take photographs of mushrooms in the dehydrator, share those photographs online, publish them with people in a Facebook chat group, and then wait for so long after the meal before getting rid of the dehydrator.'
'But Erin Patterson did the opposite of all those things because she didn't plan it; she never planned to kill anyone, and when they did get very, very sick she panicked, because that's when she realised that it might have been the meal and the spotlight would be on her.
'And that's a very powerful reason why you can't, in our submission, find this element of intention.'