Erin Patterson's responses to five prosecution accusations in mushroom murder trial
On Thursday, crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC launched her cross-examination of Erin Patterson, who is accused of murdering three of her relatives after they ate a beef Wellington she prepared and served.
During her questioning, Dr Rogers put several propositions to Ms Patterson, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and attempted murder and maintains the deaths were a tragic accident.
Here are some of those accusations and how Ms Patterson responded.
During her cross-examination, Dr Rogers targeted Ms Patterson's health, particularly a cancer diagnosis the court has previously heard was fake.
Ms Patterson agreed she had wanted the lunch guests to believe she was having treatment for cancer, but disagreed she had told them she had been diagnosed with cancer.
"Did you tell people at the lunch that you had cancer?" Dr Rogers asked.
"No," Ms Patterson responded.
Dr Rogers continued to question Ms Patterson about whether she had told her guests she had cancer, which Ms Patterson continued to deny.
The prosecution said the sole surviving guest of the lunch, Ian Wilkinson, had earlier testified that Ms Patterson told the group she had cancer.
Dr Rogers then brought Ms Patterson back to her evidence on Wednesday, where she had been questioned by her own defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, about a conversation she had with her guests about cancer.
This is part of the transcript:
Colin Mandy: And what happened with that conversation about cancer, did it move on to other topics?
Erin Patterson: Um, it stayed at that topic at that point. Um, I …
Colin Mandy: What did you say about your health?
Erin Patterson: So, it was right at the end of the meal and I mentioned that I'd had a - maybe not 'scare' is the right word, but I had an issue a year or two earlier where I thought I had ovarian cancer and had various scans about and related to that. And then, um, I'm not proud of this, but I led them to believe that I might be needing some treatment in regards to that in the next few weeks or months.
When asked by Dr Rogers if she told her guests she had upcoming treatment for cancer, Ms Patterson said she could not remember the precise words.
"But I do know what I was trying to communicate was that … that I was undergoing investigations around ovarian cancer and might need treatment in that regard in the future," she said.
Dr Rogers also put to the accused that she had researched different types of cancer on the internet to "tell a more convincing lie about having cancer".
"I mean, theoretically, that's true, but that's not what I did," Ms Patterson said.
During the questioning, Dr Rogers put the following statement to Ms Patterson:
"I suggest that you never thought you would have to account for this lie of having cancer, because you thought that the lunch guests would die and your lie would never be found out."
Ms Patterson denied this accusation, saying "that's not true".
Ms Patterson admitted she did not have a lump on her elbow or an appointment at St Vincent's hospital in the weeks before the July lunch in 2023, despite telling her mother-in-law Gail Patterson both of those things.
"You didn't have any medical issues to discuss with Gail Patterson at the lunch, did you?" Dr Rogers asked.
"I didn't have a legitimate medical reason, no, that's true," Ms Patterson said.
When she was asked why she told Gail about these things, Ms Patterson said she didn't want the care Don and Gail had been showing her to stop.
"I had initially thought I had an issue with my elbow, I'd had a lot of pain for a number of weeks," she said.
"I probably whinged a bit too much to Don and Gail about it, and felt a bit embarrassed by that.
"I suggest that you told Gail Patterson that you had a lump in your elbow and had to go to St Vincent's Hospital to plant the seed of you having a serious health issue," Dr Rogers said to Ms Patterson during the hearing.
"I'd say no, I don't think that's right, no," Ms Patterson responded.
On Thursday, the court was again shown a series of Facebook messages between Ms Patterson and her online friends.
In the messages, Ms Patterson vented to her friends about her parents-in-law being reluctant to take sides in a financial disagreement she was having with their son, Simon.
In her messages, she recounted her in-laws suggesting prayer and conversation between Ms Patterson and her husband to resolve the matters.
Dr Rogers referred to "eye-roll emojis" used in one of the messages and another emoji that Ms Patterson said showed a straight-line smile underneath.
Dr Rogers noted that emojis were a deliberate choice made by a user, and asked Ms Patterson what she would call the emojis.
"All I can say about it, it's a face with a straight line for a mouth," she replied.
"I don't know what I'd call it."
"Even though you used it?" Dr Rogers asked.
"Yeah," Ms Patterson replied.
Dr Rogers takes her to another emoji after a reference to prayer again in the message. They disagreed about whether it was an eye-roll emoji.
"There's a better eye-roll emoji than these … I can't see anything about eyes rolling in there," Ms Patterson said.
Dr Rogers suggested Ms Patterson was "mocking" the advice from her in-laws in some of these messages, including the religious aspects of that advice.
"I wasn't mocking, I was frustrated," Ms Patterson said.
Dr Rogers took Ms Patterson to evidence given by one of her Facebook friends, who told the court the accused had told them she was an atheist and found her husband's religious background difficult.
Ms Patterson denied this.
"So, your evidence is that you did not say or post that you were an atheist?" Dr Rogers asked.
"No, I didn't do that," Ms Patterson replied.
During the prosecution's cross-examination on Thursday, Ms Patterson was shown several photos of mushrooms sitting on a dehydrator rack, including some balanced on scales.
When asked about the images, Ms Patterson said she "probably" took them but had no memory of doing so.
Dr Rogers told the court fungi expert Tom May's evidence was that the mushrooms depicted on a tray in one of the photos were "consistent with Amanita phalloides [death cap mushrooms]".
"I suggest that you were weighing these death cap mushrooms so that you could calculate the weight required for the administration of a fatal dose for one person. Agree or disagree?" Dr Rogers asked Ms Patterson.
"Disagree," Ms Patterson replied.
Dr Rogers suggested to Ms Patterson that the mushrooms depicted in the photo were death cap mushrooms that the accused had foraged in Loch after seeing a post on iNaturalist.
Ms Patterson replied, "that's not correct".
Nanette Rogers: You deny that these are death cap mushrooms?
Erin Patterson: That's correct, I don't think they are.
Dr Rogers also put to Ms Patterson that the reason she had lied to police about never owning a dehydrator was because she knew she had used it to prepare death cap mushrooms for the lunch.
Ms Patterson denied this.
Dr Rogers then suggested that Ms Patterson was "very keen to dispose of any evidence that might connect you with the possession of death cap mushrooms".
"No, I didn't know they'd been in it," Ms Patterson said.
Dr Rogers put to Ms Patterson that she had deliberately used foraged mushrooms in the beef Wellington and that those foraged mushrooms were death cap mushrooms.
"I did not deliberately put death cap mushrooms in the meal," Ms Patterson said.
During the questioning, the prosecution put to Ms Patterson a suggested reason for her lying to police about owning a dehydrator.
"You lied, because you knew if you'd told the police the truth, it would implicate you in the deliberate poisoning of your four lunch guests," Dr Rogers said.
"No, no, it's not true," Ms Patterson responded.
Dr Rogers also put to the accused that she had lied about owning a food dehydrator because "you knew you had used the dehydrator to prepare death cap mushrooms to include in the lunch".
Ms Patterson also denied that, saying "I didn't know that".
She was then asked if she agreed or disagreed that she lied about dehydrating mushrooms because she knew if she "told police the truth then that would implicate you in the poisoned lunch".
"I agree that I lied because I was afraid I would be held responsible," Ms Patterson replied.
Ms Patterson later agreed if she had told the truth to police she would have been a suspect.
"You knew that if you told police the truth then you would be immediately suspected by police of being involved in a poisoning event?" Dr Rogers asked.
"That's probably true, yes," Ms Patterson said.
The trial continues.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
5 hours ago
- ABC News
WA government takes control of land next to children's hospice to allow development of 'a beautiful park'
The WA government has moved to take control of land next to the new children's hospice in Swanbourne from the City of Nedlands, after the council opposed plans to turn it into a parkland for terminally-ill children. The Perth Children's Hospital Foundation's plans to transform what it called a 'dust bowl' into a green oasis were blocked by the council, which owns Allen Park. The Lands Minister John Carey has moved to excise 3,000 square metres of land at Allen Park from council control, pending a motion in state parliament in the middle of this month. That would pave the way for the PCH Foundation's $4million plans to create a green space next to Boodja Mia, a $34 million respite and palliative care centre for children, due to be completed later this year. The City of Nedlands Council opposed the proposed park development, saying it wanted to build its own park on the A-Class reserve. A-Class classifications are used to protect areas of high conservation or high community value, but Mr Carey argued the council had not been maintaining the land in "any meaningful way". "It is a dustbowl. The Nedlands council have done nothing with this land and then right at the last minute they've said they do have a plan," Mr Carey said. "For the City of Nedlands to make some sort of claim that this land is of any significant or extraordinary value is simply false." The project will include the planting of up to 10,000 native plants, boosting tree canopy at the site to 62 per cent. Mr Carey said the park would be open to the public while also catering to patients and their families at the nearby hospice centre. The City of Nedlands has been contacted for comment.
ABC News
13 hours ago
- ABC News
Labor to change law after mother's paid parental leave was cancelled when baby died
For six weeks, tiny Priya fought for her life in the neonatal intensive care unit in a Sydney hospital. It was June 3, 2024 when — at not even 25 weeks — she arrived in the world nearly three months early — and left unbearably soon. Despite her premature birth, she had been surprising doctors with how strong she was. But on day 42, little Priya ran out of fight. "One dreaded Sunday, we were just shocked when she was unwell and she passed away," her mother said through tears. "It was the worst day of our lives. "I've never felt such pain, you just feel like screaming … it's almost like a primal feeling." Five days into grappling with her daughter's death, Priya's mother — who asked not to be named — says she called her employer of 11 years to tell them of her loss. Flowers, teddy bears and condolences from colleagues arrived, but after a text exchange with her employer that lasted another five days, she received a message she found both shocking and distressing. It was her workplace notifying her that her three months of pre-approved paid parental leave (PPL) had been cancelled. Instead, her employer offered four weeks of personal leave — not even enough to cover Priya's time alive. Up until then, she had been using a mix of annual and long service leave, so never received a day of the three months of approved PPL through her employer. The government paid leave, however, did remain. Already, she was so overcome with grief she would wake up in the middle of the night crying and now she had a new problem on her hands. "They just escalated my grief and trauma even more than needed to be," she said. She had already begun to needlessly question her motherhood and her employer's decision just compounded that. "I was thinking maybe I really must not be a mother — even my workplace is saying that," she said. After building a career in employment services, helping other people find work, she was now having to do the same, having quit after feeling such disrespect from her workplace towards her and her baby. Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Amanda Rishworth calls it a "gap" that needs to be fixed. "No parent should have their employer paid parental leave cancelled in the event of a stillbirth or an early death of a child," she said. Spurred by the advocacy of Priya's parents, the federal government has committed to making the legislative change "swiftly," but has not put a timeline on it. Minister Rishworth said the law firstly needed to be drafted, then consulted on with employers, unions and Priya's parents. She said most employers continued to guarantee the leave in the circumstance of a stillbirth or early death of a child, but the government wanted to make sure "there is no grey area". "For those that it does affect, it is profound," she said. The government said the change would align the private sector with the Commonwealth scheme so employees are still entitled to the leave if their child is stillborn or if the baby dies while the employee is on PPL, or during a period in which they could have accessed it. In the year since Priya's passing, more than 31,000 people have signed an online petition to support the cause. On Friday, Priya's mum and dad met Minister Rishworth in Adelaide to show her the signatures. "In the name of Priya, other grieving parents will not need to go through the same pain that I did," her mother said. "I'm feeling so grateful to my daughter Priya … she's given me strength."
ABC News
14 hours ago
- ABC News
Exercise could extend life after a colon cancer diagnosis
Something as simple as an exercise program post-chemotherapy could significantly increase the risk of survival in colon cancer. A 17-year randomised-controlled trial found a 37 per cent lower risk of death in patients who participated in the three-year program. This compared to a group that received exercise advice but didn't receive structured support. Guest/s Professor Janette Vardy, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Sydney Professor Janette Vardy, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Sydney Professor Haryana Dhillon, professor of psycho-oncology at the University of Sydney References
