EXCLUSIVE Staight-talking doctor whose key evidence helped bring mushroom lunch murderer Erin Patterson to justice reveals how he now faces losing his JOB
Dr Chris Webster has been in the headlines since Patterson was found guilty on Monday of murdering her in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, and her sister, Heather Wilkinson, with death cap mushrooms hidden in beef Wellingtons on July 29, 2023.
The straight-talking doctor has now been gagged from speaking to the media after his clinic received official complaints about the way he described Patterson.
Dr Webster was a key medical witness early in the 10-week trial, telling the jury he first encountered Patterson at Leongatha hospital at about 8am on Sunday, July 31, 2023 - two days after her deadly lunch.
At that stage, Don, Gail, Heather and her husband, Ian Wilkinson, were fighting for life in various hospitals.
Dr Webster was already aware that her four guests may have been poisoned with death cap mushrooms when he first laid eyes on Patterson at the hospital.
The experienced doctor, who now owns Leongatha Healthcare clinic, told the jury he apologised to Patterson before he recognised her as the lunch cook.
'I apologised (that) she had been kept waiting, I asked why she had presented and she said "gastro",' he said.
'I asked her where she got the mushrooms and she said, "Woolworths".'
Dr Webster, who doubted Patterson's Woolworths claims, said he told her that he needed to commence treatment on her for possible death cap mushroom poisoning.
The doctor later said he became aware Patterson had left the hospital.
After the verdict, Dr Webster told the Herald Sun he thought Patterson was a 'crazy b***h'.
'If she said she picked them (the death caps), it would have been a very different mindset for me because there would have been an instant assumption it was all a tragic accident,' he told the newspaper.
'But once she said that answer (that she bought the mushrooms from Woolworths), my thoughts were, "holy f**king shit, you f**king did it, you crazy b***h, you poisoned them all."
'The turning point for me was that moment.'
Dr Webster also described Patterson as a 'disturbed sociopathic nutbag'.
The doctor, who serves the medically under-resourced Gippsland region of Victoria, now faces the possibility of losing his job.
In an exclusive interview with Daily Mail, Dr Webster said his clinic has received numerous formal complaints which may need to be investigated by the medical board.
The doctor said he will work to clear his name and get on with treating patients after numerous people accused him of being a 'misogynist'.
'I'm not that at all, that's not me,' Dr Webster told Daily Mail.
'I stand by what I've done, this is very important. I'm happy to do all the media but it's become all too much now and I have engaged a lawyer and now gagged from any future media (in the short term).
'It's one thing copping these accusations on social media and Instagram but now it's formal complaints. I need to get home and back to work and sort this out, and once things are sorted I will speak again.'
Dr Webster said the complaints had drained his and his family's energy.
'One of the complaints accused me of talking about a "patient of mine", they referred to Patterson as a "patient of mine", not as a convicted killer,' he said.
'I go back to work next week and hopefully I'll be able to get back to the work required of a rural doctor.'
Dr Webster also said he feared the medical board would need to investigate the complaints if they were 'substantiated'.
An adverse finding by the board, if it got that far, could result in a suspension, or, in an extreme measure, disqualification for Dr Webster.
During the trial, Dr Webster told the court that Patterson had discharged herself against medical advice.
'I was surprised, well, I had just informed (her) she had just been exposed to a deadly death cap mushroom and I thought hospital would be a better place to be,' Dr Webster told the court.
'I rang Erin's mobile three times and left three voicemails.
'I was apologetic, and I informed the voicemail that I would have to inform police for her health and safety to bring her back to hospital.'
Dr Webster rang triple-0 and that call was played to the jury.
The doctor later said he became aware Patterson had left hospital.
'Erin had discharged herself against advice,' he said.
'I was surprised, well, I had just informed (her) she had just been exposed to a deadly death cap mushroom and I thought hospital would be a better place to be.
'I rang Erin's mobile three times and left three voicemails.
'I was apologetic, and I informed the voicemail that I would have to inform police for her health and safety to bring her back to hospital.'
Dr Webster rang triple-0 and that call was played to the jury.
'This is Dr Chris Webster calling from Leongatha Hospital and I have a concern regarding a patient that presented here earlier and has left the building and is potentially exposed a toxin from mushroom poisoning and I've tried several times to get hold of her on her mobile phone,' he commenced the call.
The operator informed Dr Webster that police would drive to Patterson's home in Leongatha to perform a welfare check.
Dr Webster said he encountered Patterson again just before 10am that same day after she returned to the hospital.
At 10.04am, police called the hospital and said they had arrived at Patterson's house.
'I told them she was here (at hospital) but I asked them to grab some of the leftover Wellington,' Dr Webster said.
'I had no idea, but figured there was a chance, strike while the iron is hot.'
Dr Webster said he became concerned about Patterson after warning her that her children could be in dire trouble.
'I stressed the importance of getting them to hospital,' he said.
'Erin was reluctant to inform the children and I said it was important, she was concerned they were going to be frightened.
'I said, "they can be scared and alive, or dead."'
Erin's estranged husband, Simon Patterson, drove Ian and Heather Wilkinson to Leongatha Hospital on July 30 before the couple were transferred to the Austin ICU.
Patterson's guilty verdict ended one of Australia's most intriguing homicide cases.
The mother-of-two, who pleaded not guilty to the murders, sat defiantly throughout her 10-week trial, glaring at the media, members of the public and the family of the people she murdered with callous disregard.
Only Pastor Ian Wilkinson survived her plot - a blunder Patterson would live to regret, and will now serve time for after also being found guilty of attempting to murder him.
Patterson, who is on remand at Dame Phyllis Frost Centre, will be sentenced at a later date.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain must stop subsidising pensioners to save the NHS
The Government recently produced a paper on the NHS entitled 'Fit for the Future – The 10 Year Health Plan for England'. It included many radical ideas and didn't pull its punches in regard to the need for reform. It said: 'The choice is stark: reform or die'. And, if nothing is done, it said, the NHS could become 'a poor service for poor people'. Despite its radical tone and many good ideas, this report did not go far enough. In particular, it accepted the continuation of the current system of funding whereby just about the whole cost of the Service is borne by the taxpayer. In a report published last week by Policy Exchange entitled 'The NHS – a Suitable Case for Treatment?', I and two co-authors went much further and called for an end to the system of predominantly taxpayer funding which has been the model since the NHS was founded in 1948. In the mid-1950s the government spent about 3pc of its GDP on healthcare. Today the figure is 9pc (excluding the private sector), amounting to almost a fifth of all government spending. If nothing is done, by 2070 we could end up spending more than a fifth of our GDP on the NHS. This is unacceptable. If we allowed this to happen, other sorts of public spending would have to be squeezed and/or taxes would have to be raised to eye-watering levels. This would have a devastating effect on incentives and therefore a materially depressing effect on the economy. The funding system is the first of the NHS's major problems. The second is inadequate quality. Many British people think that the NHS delivers a first-class service. Yet, it is clear that the NHS offers neither the best nor the worst healthcare in the world. Admittedly, at its best, it is superb, but the standard is hit and miss, and at its worst, it is pretty bad. Among a group of countries of comparable economic development (Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland and the US), on both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy the UK comes in second to last. Only the US scores worse. On preventable and treatable mortality, the UK again comes in second to last, ahead of only the US. On the proportion of patients waiting over a year to see a specialist, the UK is the highest in the group. We also perform badly on the ease of securing an appointment with a GP and access to GPs out of hours. What is to be done? Whenever someone criticises the NHS and suggests that we need to move to a different model, a chorus of voices loudly proclaims that we must not become like America. Indeed not. The US health system pulls off a remarkable double whammy. Although some of the best healthcare in the world is to be found in the United States, average health outcomes for the population as a whole are simply dire. Meanwhile, the system is about the most expensive in the world. However bad the NHS may seem, it is infinitely preferable to the American system. Under no circumstances should we consider copying the US. But we don't have to. There are many countries in the world which operate a different system for funding healthcare and enjoy better average health outcomes than the UK. The essence of their approach is to combine charging and co-payments with a system of social insurance. That is to say, compulsory purchasing of medical insurance, covering everyone in the population, with concessionary rates or even full reimbursement available for poor people. The state remains involved as both a partial funder, co-ordinator and regulator of the system. But governments spend much less on healthcare in these countries than we do, and thereby place a much smaller burden on their taxpayers. Countries that run such a system include Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore and Switzerland. The most outstandingly successful of these is Singapore. It spends only about 5pc of its GDP on healthcare and of that, not much more than a half comes from government. Meanwhile, Singapore achieves just about the best health outcomes in our comparator group. Yet Singapore is a very special case, with a particular political and social model. For an example that would serve the UK well, we should probably look closer to home. The obvious place to look is the Netherlands, not least because it underwent a radical reform of its health system in 2006. It delivers high standards of healthcare yet the government spends only 1pc of GDP on health. Some people will argue that we already have a system of insurance to pay for healthcare, namely National Insurance. Despite its name, however, this is not really a system of insurance. It is rather another form of tax. The amount of money the state pays for healthcare is not restricted by the amount of National Insurance contributions coming into the Treasury. Moreover, unlike pensions, where eligibility is connected with National Insurance contributions, a person's ability to access the NHS is not circumscribed by their NI contribution record. Moving from a system of funding through taxation to one based largely on social insurance is going to be a tough ask. It cannot be completed overnight. The place to start a programme to reform the financing of the NHS is with the introduction of a small charge for GP appointments and an end to the automatic entitlement to free prescriptions for pensioners, regardless of their financial circumstances. Doubtless many people will say that these proposals destroy the essence of the NHS as it was established in 1948. But the provision of healthcare in this country cannot be treated as a sort of museum exhibit. We can adhere to the spirit of the NHS in creating a system that delivers excellent healthcare for all within a funding framework that is right for the 21 st century.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Former judge's excuse for leaking confidential material from Bruce Lehrmann inquiry
A former judge's decision to leak confidential material from an inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann 's criminal prosecution was an attempt at transparency not an act of corruption, his lawyers say. Walter Sofronoff KC has asked the Federal Court to toss a March finding by the ACT Integrity Commission that the former judge engaged in serious corrupt conduct. The commission's probe stemmed from Mr Sofronoff's leaks to a journalist. But the watchdog's adverse finding was a 'serious offence against the administration of justice', Mr Sofronoff's barrister Adam Pomerenke KC said during a hearing on Monday. Mr Sofronoff was not corrupt, malicious or dishonest, the barrister told Justice Wendy Abrahams. Rather, he genuinely believed he was acting in the public interest by sending documents like witness statements to the media. 'Even if Mr Sofronoff was wrong in his view, the fact remains that he genuinely and honestly held it,' Mr Pomerenke said. 'At worst it could be characterised as an erroneous attempt to ensure accuracy and transparency in the public discourse.' Mr Sofronoff chaired a board of inquiry into the ACT's criminal justice system after Lehrmann's controversy-plagued prosecution. The former Liberal staffer was accused of raping then-colleague Brittany Higgins in a ministerial office at Parliament House in 2019. A 2022 criminal trial was abandoned without a verdict due to juror misconduct. Lehrmann lost a defamation lawsuit he brought over media reporting of Ms Higgins' allegations but has appealed a judge's finding the rape claim was true on the balance of probabilities. The Sofronoff-led inquiry found the ACT's top prosecutor, Shane Drumgold, had lost objectivity over the Lehrmann case and knowingly lied about a note of his meeting with broadcaster Lisa Wilkinson. Mr Drumgold resigned and launched a legal challenge to the findings in the ACT Supreme Court. It found the majority of the inquiry's findings were not legally unreasonable, but it struck down an adverse finding about how Mr Drumgold cross-examined then-Liberal senator Linda Reynolds during Lehrmann's criminal trial. In March, the ACT Integrity Commission also found the majority of the inquiry's findings were not legally unreasonable. But it found Mr Sofronoff's behaviour during the inquiry gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and he might have been influenced by the publicly expressed views of journalist Janet Albrechtsen. Mr Sofronoff repeatedly messaged the News Corp columnist and eventually provided her an advance copy of his probe's final report. Mr Pomerenke told the Federal Court on Monday the ACT corruption body had admitted it made an error in finding Mr Sofronoff might have engaged in contempt. The claimed contempt stemmed out of leaks to the media despite directions made to parties during the inquiry to suppress certain documents. But the notion that the head of an inquiry could be in contempt of himself was 'absurd and irrational', Mr Pomerenke said. This concession was enough to toss the findings against his client, he told the court. Any individual error could not be 'disentangled' from the final finding that the former judge engaged in serious corrupt conduct, the barrister said.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Walter Sofronoff had no ‘corrupt, dishonest or malicious motive' in leaking Lehrmann inquiry report, lawyer argues
Former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff sincerely believed he was acting for the public good when he leaked his report on the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann to two journalists before it was made public, the federal court has heard. Hearings began on Monday into Sofronoff's legal challenge to findings by the Australian Capital Territory's corruption watchdog that he had engaged in 'serious corrupt conduct' by leaking the report of his investigation into the Lehrmann case to Janet Albrechtsen at the Australian and Elizabeth Byrne at the ABC, ahead of its official release. There was 'overwhelming evidence that Mr Sofronoff genuinely believed he was acting in the public good', and attempting to aid accuracy of media reportage, his counsel Adam Pomerenke KC told the court. 'Even if Mr Sofronoff was wrong in his view, the fact remains that he genuinely and honestly held it. This is not a corrupt, dishonest or malicious motive. At worst, it could be characterised as an erroneous attempt to ensure accuracy and transparency in public discourse. That cannot rationally be described as corrupt,' Pomerenke said. Bruce Lehrmann was accused of raping Brittany Higgins in the ministerial office of senator Linda Reynolds at Parliament House in 2019. He denied those allegations. A 2022 criminal trial was aborted because of juror misconduct, and prosecutors decided against a re-trial. Sofronoff was appointed by the ACT government to determine whether the investigation into the aborted Lehrmann trial had been affected by political influence or interference. His report ruled out political influence or interference but made 'serious findings of misconduct' against prosecutor Shane Drumgold, which were partially overturned in March 2024. The ACT Integrity Commission launched an investigation in May 2024 to determine whether Sofronoff acted corruptly in leaking the confidential documents. The commission's findings, known as the Juno report, said Sofronoff claimed his conduct 'complied with the requirements of the Inquiries Act' and that, in leaking the documents, he had 'acted in the public interest to ensure the media were adequately informed' about his inquiry and 'in a position to comment accurately' about it. The commission found that Sofronoff 'had not, in fact, acted in good faith', that his actions 'undermined the integrity of the Board's processes and the fairness and probity of its proceedings to such an extent as to have been likely to have threatened public confidence in the integrity of that aspect of public administration. It therefore constituted serious corrupt conduct.' Sofronoff rejected a characterisation by the ACT Integrity Commission in its findings that he had become 'a fellow traveller' of Albrechtson, Pomerenke told the court. The phrase was first used to describe Sofronoff by Justice Stephen Kaye when finding in March 2024 that Sofronoff's extensive communications with Albrechtson had given rise to an impression of bias against prosecutor Shane Drumgold during the inquiry into the Lehrmann trial. The concept of the 'fellow traveller' being redeployed in the context of the Juno report was 'simply unrecognisable'; it was 'a meaningless slogan' with no clear definition, and 'seriously problematic' when used in that way, Pomerenke told the court on Monday. 'What is it supposed to mean? Is it that Mr Sofronoff shared an actual opinion or belief [with Janet Albrechtson]? If so, what is the opinion or belief that he actually shared? None is identified. And how could that opinion or belief rationally lead Mr Sofronoff to sacrificing the public interest in pursuit of the unidentified opinion or belief that he held?' Even if one vehemently disagreed with what Sofronoff did, it should not be described as corrupt, Pomerenke told the court. Sofronoff is seeking to have the finding of the corruption watchdog overturned partly on the basis of what he claims are a series of errors – an argument that turns on the interpretation of what constitutes 'serious corrupt conduct' in the integrity commission act – and on a lack of evidence that he leaked the report with malicious intent, the court heard. The ACT Integrity Commission failed in May in an attempt to have Sofronoff's challenge to the report nixed on the grounds that it was subject to parliamentary privilege. The hearing continues.
