Woman found guilty of murdering husband's family with poison mushroom meal
Erin Patterson has been convicted of three counts of murder
Erin Patterson arriving in the back of a prison transport vehicle at Latrobe Valley Magistrate's Court in Morwell, Australia
Australian woman Erin Patterson was on Monday found guilty of murdering three of her estranged husband's relatives by deliberately serving them poisonous mushrooms for lunch. The jury in the Supreme Court trial in Victoria state returned a verdict after six days of deliberations, following a nine-week trial that gripped Australia. Patterson faces life in prison and will be sentenced at a later date.
Patterson, who sat in the dock between two prison officers, showed no emotion but blinked rapidly as the verdicts were read. Three of Patterson's four lunch guests — her parents-in-law Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson — died in hospital after the 2023 meal at her home in Leongatha, at which she served individual beef Wellington pastries containing death cap mushrooms.
She was also found guilty of attempting to murder Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband, who survived the meal. It was not disputed that Patterson served the mushrooms or that the pastries killed her guests. The jury was required to decide whether she knew the lunch contained death caps, and if she intended for them to die.
The guilty verdicts, which were required to be unanimous, indicated that jurors rejected Patterson's defence that the presence of the poisonous fungi in the meal was a terrible accident, caused by the mistaken inclusion of foraged mushrooms that she did not know were death caps. Prosecutors did not offer a motive for the killings, but during the trial highlighted strained relations between Patterson and her estranged husband, and frustration that she had felt about his parents in the past.
The case turned on the question of whether Patterson meticulously planned a triple murder or accidentally killed three people she loved, including her children's only surviving grandparents. Her lawyers said she had no reason to do so — she had recently moved to a beautiful new home, was financially comfortable, had sole custody of her children and was due to begin studying for a degree in nursing and midwifery.
Article continues below
But prosecutors suggested Patterson had two faces — the woman who publicly appeared to have a good relationship with her parents-in-law, while her private feelings about them were kept hidden. Her relationship with her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, who was invited to the fatal lunch but did not go, deteriorated in the year before the deaths, the prosecution said.
The simplest facts of what happened that day and immediately afterwards were hardly disputed. But Patterson's motivations for what she did and why were pored over in detail during the lengthy trial, at which more than 50 witnesses were called. The individual beef Wellington pastries Patterson served her guests was one point of friction, because the recipe she used contained directions for a single, family-sized portion.
Prosecutors said that she reverted to individual servings, so she could lace the other diners' portions, but not her own, with the fatal fungi — but Patterson said that she was unable to find the correct ingredients to make the recipe as directed. Nearly every other detail of the fateful day was scrutinised at length, including why Patterson sent her children out to a film before her guests arrived, why she added additional dried mushrooms to the recipe from her pantry, why she did not become ill when the other diners did, and why she disposed of a food dehydrator after the deaths and told investigators that she did not own one.
Article continues below
Patterson acknowledged some lies during her evidence — including that she had never foraged mushrooms or owned a dehydrator. But she said that those claims were made in panic as she realised her meal had killed people. She said she did not become as ill as the other diners since she vomited after the meal because of an eating disorder. She denied that she told her guests she had cancer as a ruse to explain why she invited them to her home that day.
Before the verdict, Australian news outlets published photos of black privacy screens erected at the entrance to Patterson's home. The case has provoked fervour among the public and media, and the courtroom in the rural town of Morwell was packed throughout the trial.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
The mushroom poisoning trial captivated Australia. Why Erin Patterson did it remains a mystery
The high-profile case of the so-called Death Cap Mushroom Cook is likely to remain a topic of conversation across Australia for years to come. For more than two months, the triple-murder trial has gripped the public's attention with details of how Erin Patterson murdered three of her estranged husband's relatives by deliberately serving them a lunch of poisonous mushrooms. It was no surprise that on Tuesday — the day after the guilty verdict was delivered by the court in Victoria — media websites, social media and podcasts were scrambling to offer analysis on what motivated her. Newspaper headlines described Patterson, 50, as a coercive killer with narcissistic characteristics. ' Cold, mean and vicious,' read one. Strict Australian court reporting laws prohibit anything that might sway jurors in a trial. Some news outlets had saved up thousands of words awaiting the verdicts: scrutiny of Patterson's past work history, behavior and psyche. The coverage tried to explain why the mother of two meticulously planned the fatal lunch and lured three people she said she loved to their deaths. Any certain answer, for now, remains a mystery. No motive After a nine-week Supreme Court trial in the state of Victoria, it took the jury six days to convict Patterson. She was found guilty of murdering her parents-in-law, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson, by serving them a lunch of beef Wellington pastries laced with poisonous mushrooms. She was also convicted of attempting to murder Heather's husband, Ian Wilkinson, who survived the meal at Patterson's home in the rural town of Leongatha in 2023. Patterson denied poisoning them deliberately and contended that she had no reason to murder her beloved, elderly in-laws. But the jury rejected her defense that the inclusion of toxic mushrooms in the meal was a terrible accident. Prosecutors failed to offer a motive for Patterson's crimes and weren't required to do so. 'People do different things for different reasons. Sometimes the reason is obvious enough to others,' prosecutor Nanette Rogers told the jury. 'At other times, the internal motivations are only known by the person themselves.' But Rogers gave hints. At one point, the prosecutor had Patterson read aloud scathing messages she'd sent which highlighted past friction with her in-laws and tension with her estranged husband, who had been invited to the lunch but didn't go. 'You had two faces,' Rogers said. Patterson denied it. 'She had a dilemma' With guilty verdicts but no proven reason why, Australian news outlets published avid speculation Tuesday. 'What on earth was Erin Patterson's motive?' The Australian newspaper's editorial director Claire Harvey asked in a column. Harvey pointed at rifts in the killer's relationship with her estranged husband. Chris Webster was the first medical doctor to speak to Patterson after her four lunch guests had been hospitalized and testified in the trial. He told reporters Tuesday that he became convinced she deliberately poisoned her victims when she lied about buying the foraged mushrooms she had served from a major supermarket chain. 'She had a dilemma and the solution that she chose is sociopathic,' Webster told Nine Network television. Displayed no emotion The outpouring of scorn for Patterson reflects a national obsession with the case and a widespread view that she wasn't a sympathetic figure. It was an opinion Australians were legally required not to express in the media or online before the trial ended to ensure a fair hearing. But newspapers now don't have to hold back. Under the headline 'Death Cap Stare,' The Age reported how the 'killer cook' didn't flinch as she learned her fate, but stared at the jury as they delivered their verdict. Melbourne's Herald Sun newspaper's front page screamed: 'COOKED,' labelling Patterson 'Evil Erin' and a 'Cold-Blooded Killer.' During the trial, Patterson chose to testify in her own defense, a tactic considered risky in the Australian justice system and one which most observers said didn't serve her well. She joked awkwardly at times and became combative with the prosecutor. Journalist John Ferguson, who won a Melbourne Press Club award for breaking the story of the fatal lunch, said Patterson often cried or came close to tears during her trial. But when she was convicted, she displayed no emotion, he noted. 'What the court got on Monday was the full Erin. Cold, mean and vicious,' Ferguson wrote in The Australian Tuesday. Drama series, documentary and books The verdicts also prompted an online frenzy among Australians, many of whom turned citizen detectives during the trial. By late Monday, posts about the verdicts on local Reddit pages had drawn thousands of comments laced with black humor, including memes, in-jokes and photographs taken at local supermarkets where pre-packaged beef Wellington meals were discounted. Fascination about the case will linger. A drama series, documentary and books are planned, all of them likely to attempt an answer to the question of what motivated Patterson. She faces life in prison, with sentencing to come at a later date. From then, Patterson's lawyers will have 28 days to appeal. —- Graham-McLay reported from Wellington, New Zealand.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE I visited the home of mushroom murderer Erin Patterson to try and find out exactly what drove her to carry out her brutal killings. These are the chilling clues I found that may finally give us the answer: GUY ADAMS
What sort of person is Erin Trudi Patterson? Why, more to the point, would this outwardly normal mother-of-two, from a small town in rural Australia, decide to brutally kill several of her nearest and supposedly dearest relatives using poisoned beef Wellington? These were the questions at the heart of the 'Mushroom Murder' trial which concluded on Monday with Patterson being found guilty of their cruel and utterly bizarre mass murder.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
How do criminal courts work without juries around the world?
One of the most significant recommendations in a review of the criminal courts in England and Wales, expected to be published this week, is likely to be the scrapping of jury trials for certain offences. The idea in Sir Brian Leveson's independent inquiry is that it will help reduce the record backlog in the courts. But for many the right to a jury trial, except for the most minor offences, is synonymous with the right to a fair trial and watering it down would be hugely controversial. Here the Guardian examines how other countries' criminal courts work. In the US, the sixth amendment of the constitution states: 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state.' However, the supreme court ruled in 1970 that 'petty' offences, carrying a maximum sentence of six months could be tried without a jury. This puts it in line with what used to be the maximum sentence in magistrates courts in England and Wales, although, since 18 November last year, magistrates have been able to hand down prison sentences of up to a year. In the US, defendants have the right to waive their right to a jury trial, provided this is done voluntarily and intelligently. In England and Wales there is a much more limited right to choose, only available in the case of 'either-way' offences. These are criminal charges where the magistrate believes they have sufficient sentencing powers to hear the case but where the defendant can opt for a jury trial. Perhaps the most notorious jury trial in the US was when jurors deliberated less than four hours before acquitting OJ Simpson of the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, after an eight-month trial. The Goldman and Brown families later won a civil case against Simpson. There have been no jury trials in Germany since 1924, when they were abolished. Most cases are tried by a panel of professional and lay judges. The lay judges must be aged between 25 and 69. Religious ministers, certain politicians and health professionals working in the court system are among those excluded. Municipal councils draw up a list of ordinary members of the public deemed suitable and they are then chosen by a committee to serve a five-year term. The so-called Schöffen help to make decisions on both law and fact. According to Encyclopedia Britannica: 'Although Schöffen are considered an important part of the German legal system, many professional jurists, including lawyers as well as judges, tend to believe that their influence is continuing to wane and that they may eventually be abolished because of their alleged tendency to project personal rather than legalistic opinions.' Jury trials were introduced to India under British rule, the first taking place in 1665. In 1958, reflecting decades of concern, the Law Commission of India called the jury system a 'failure' but the real impetus for them being abolished is said to be the infamous Nanavati case the following year. A jury acquitted an Indian navy commander of the murder of his wife's lover, despite overwhelming evidence only for the Bombay (Mumbai) high court to overturn the not guilty verdict. The Law Commission report had criticised the use of 'unscrupulous professional jurors' and criticised the failure of juries to deliver 'independent, impartial and just verdicts'. The Nanavati case amplified concerns about bias, including with respect to religion and caste, and the influence of external pressures and jury trials began to be phased out. They were not officially abolished until the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 stated: 'After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the judge shall give a judgment in the case.' Jury trials in France were a legacy of the 1789 revolution. They are limited to the most serious cases, heard by the cour d'assises, where three judges sit beside six jurors. The French have an inquisitorial judicial system as opposed to the adversarial system used in England and Wales, and, where there are jurors, French judges deliberate with them to reach a verdict. Cases which can be heard by the cour d'assises were controversially limited in 2023 to those carrying the longest sentences. That year it was decreed that all offences carrying a maximum sentence of 15-20 years should be tried by panels of five judges at 'département criminal courts', encompassing nearly all rape trials. Several thousand lawyers, academics and judges warned that abolition of juries was a danger to democracy. When, in a case that caught the world's attention, Dominique Pelicot was last year found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison for drugging his wife Gisèle Pelicot and inviting dozens of men to rape her over almost a decade of their marriage, it was a panel of five judges who delivered the verdict.
