Mushroom killer who poisoned family 'tampered with lag's meal in prison kitchen'
A woman convicted of murdering three relatives by poisoning them with deadly mushrooms is now accused of targeting a fellow inmate with another poisoned meal.
Erin Patterson is accused of tampering with the food after she was reportedly given a job in the prison kitchen while on remand and waiting to stand trial. Today, she was found guilty of lacing a beef wellington with poisonous mushrooms and feeding to her estranged husband's parents and aunt after inviting them to lunch.
Her former parents-in-law, Don and Gail Patterson, both 70, and Gail Patterson's sister, Heather Wilkinson, 66, died after the lunch at Patterson's home in the town of Leongatha, Australia, the court heard.
She was found guilty of their murders and the attempted murder of Mrs Wilkinson's husband Reverend Ian Wilkinson, who ate the food but survived.
Patterson, a mother of two, was convicted at the Supreme Court trial in Victoria state after the jury returned a verdict after six days of deliberations, following a nine-week trial.
Following her conviction, The Herald Sun reports that following a dispute with Patterson, a fellow prisoner became sick - and pointed the finger at the triple murderer.
A Corrections Victoria source confirmed to Daily Mail Australia that Patterson had been given a job in the prison kitchen despite the nature of the allegations against her.
A Department of Justice and Community Safety Victoria spokesman denied this however. They added: "There is no evidence to support that there has been any contaminated food or suspected poisonings at Dame Phyllis Frost Centre."
During her trial the court heard that all of Pattison's guests fell ill following the lunch, which consisted of beef wellington, mashed potatoes and green beans the court was told.
Prosecutors had alleged that she laced the meal with deadly death cap mushrooms, also known as Amanita phalloides.
Mrs Wilkinson and Mrs Patterson died on Friday 4 August 2023, while Mr Patterson died a day later and Reverend Wilkinson spent seven weeks in hospital but survived.
Her estranged husband Simon Patterson was also invited to the lunch and initially accepted but later declined, the trial was told.
The court heard how all four guests fell ill after eating their meal off four large grey dinner plates, while Patterson ate hers off a smaller, tan coloured plate.
The prosecutions case alleged that she ate of a visibly different plate in order to ensure that there was no cross contamination.
Reverend Wilkinson said that straight after the meal, Patterson told the group that she had been diagnosed with cancer, suggesting that she was wanting their advice on the best way to tell her children.
The defence did not dispute his claims.
It wasn't disputed that Patterson served the mushrooms or that the food killed her guests.
The jury was only required to decide whether she knew the lunch contained the poisonous mushrooms, and if she intended for them to die.
Prosecutors didn't 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.
Patterson will be sentenced at a later date.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
15 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court asked to issue guidance to Scottish judges
Speaking to The Herald, criminal defence advocate Mr Lenehan said new guidance from the Supreme Court would be "welcomed". He said: 'Clear guidance from the Supreme Court would be welcomed by practitioners. "Guidance which respects the intelligence of juries to assess the value of evidence within the confines of each case, and provides an accessible instruction to judges and practitioners alike to ensure the ideal balance is found between the rights of the accused and respect for the privacy and dignity of vulnerable complainers when admitting sensitive evidence.' READ MORE: Earlier this month fellow advocate Thomas Leonard Ross KC raised his concerns with The Herald that he believed some men accused of sexual offences were not getting a fair trial because of how courts were understanding rules relating to the admissibility of evidence in sexual offence trials. He told The Herald that victims had told lies about matters relating to a case yet the defence had been stopped from putting that situation to the jury. "How can it be said that someone has had a fair trial when it's been proved that the complainer lied about something important in the course of the inquiry and that was not allowed to be introduced as evidence?" he said. "There are serious concerns that people are not getting a fair trial when they are not being given the opportunity to provide evidence which might support their innocence". Tony Lenehan KC, vice dean of the Faculty of Advocates (Image: Contributor) The debate revolves around what evidence is allowed to be heard in open court before a jury. Known as "rape shield" laws, specific provisions to regulate the use of sexual history evidence were first introduced in Scotland by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 and were designed primarily to protect rape complainers' privacy and dignity. The provisions were later repeated in sections 274 and 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. In response to concerns about their operation, the provisions in the 1995 Act were replaced by new sections 274 and 275 in 2002. Sections 274 and 275 of the 1995 Act were intended to protect complainers in sexual offence trials from inappropriate questioning about their sexual history and wider character and lifestyle when giving evidence in court. Rape shield laws were designed to protect rape victims' privacy and dignity (Image: PA) In particular, they were intended to discourage the use of evidence seen as of limited relevance, where the primary purpose of the evidence is to undermine the credibility of the complainer or divert attention from the issues that require to be determined at trial. Defence lawyers can make an application to the court for certain evidence regarded as inadmissible to be heard. But to succeed they must demonstrate when they make the application that not just that the evidence is relevant, but that its relevance is so great that it outweighs the intrusion it represents into the privacy and dignity of the affected complainer. "That's the balancing exercise which goes awry sometimes, in the view of many lawyers," said Mr Lenehan. Mr Ross had said in some cases the way rules allowing only evidence that is "relevant" to the charge to be heard have been too narrowly interpreted meaning evidence that a jury may have seen as significant was not allowed to be heard by them. Thomas Leonard Ross KC raised concerns over the operation of rape shield laws (Image: PA) Mr Lenehan said: "There is absolutely no question that a robust rape shield is there just seems to be fairly broad views that there were risks attached to the ever narrowing of rules around the admissibility of evidence. "Sometimes I find it hard to explain to an accused person who is asking me 'I don't understand why I can't tell the jury that.'" Mr Lenehan said his concerns did not go as far as those expressed by Mr Ross arguing that the problematic cases were "outliers'. "I don't think you can say there is a whole scale difficulty. That is not the view that I've got," he said. "But I am aware that there is widespread concern. What is at the core of my concern is that we undervalue jurors' intelligence when we apply these increasing limits to what they can and what they can't know. "Part of the issue just now is that we don't accord enough respect to the intellect of juries. I worry about that and I worry that there have been decisions that seemed to me to remove from the jury things that the jury would have found relevant to their considerations." Rape Crisis Scotland chief executive Sandy Brindley said: 'Robust implementation of the current protection for complainers in relation to defence using their sexual history or character is essential. "This evidence is highly prejudicial, often designed to appeal to any prejudice jury members might have around women's behaviour. "Polling published earlier this month found 47% of Scottish adults believe in at least one rape myth – this could be the idea that people cannot be raped by someone they are in a relationship with, or that rape always involves violence. "The prospect of their sexual history or character being introduced in court is extremely distressing and often prevents women from feeling able to report what has happened to them to the police. 'Seeking justice for rape shouldn't mean having to be subjected to irrelevant and distressing questioning. "Numerous cases of sexual violence have highlighted the need for the senior judges to act. Cases like Macdonald in 2020, where during cross-examination a young woman was asked 12 different questions about showering with her female friend the night of the incident, 11 questions on what she was wearing immediately prior to and during the incident, and repeated reference to the type of underwear she was wearing. It is unacceptable that women are being treated like this. 'The conviction rate in rape cases with one complainer in Scotland is 24%, compared to an overall crime conviction rate of 86%. There are absolutely miscarriages of justice happening in rape cases – however, the issue here is not men being wrongly convicted. It is women routinely being denied justice, and rapists regularly walking free.' A spokesman for the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service said it did not want to comment on Mr Lenehan's remarks. A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: 'Everyone has the right to a fair trial and to appeal against a conviction or sentence. There are well-established rules on what evidence can be led in sexual offences trials, and clear routes to challenge how these are applied.'
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
Trump says his own legal victory could protect Obama
Donald Trump admitted his own Supreme Court victory granting 'presidential immunity' means it's unlikely Barack Obama will be charged with treason over his handling of the 'Russia hoax.' Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a declassified report allegedly implicating Obama and his administration of 2016 election interference that accused Trump of colluding with Moscow. Trump has accused Obama of treason, while Obama issued a statement denying any allegations. Even if Obama were to be in trouble, the Supreme Court ruled in a monumental 2024 decision that the President of the United States has immunity from prosecution for official acts in office, in a case argued by lawyers on Trump's behalf. Trump was asked if 'presidential immunity' would apply to Obama before his trip to Scotland on Friday and the president didn't deny it, going as far as to say he'd done his predecessor a favor. 'He has done criminal acts, no question about it. But he has immunity and it probably helps him a lot. He owes me big. Obama owes me big,' Trump said. The ex-president's team argued in late 2023 that Trump, and any president, must have absolute immunity from prosecution over actions taken while in office or it could impair important decision-making. The 6-3 decision split along the court's ideological lines ensures that Trump will not face another blockbuster trial anytime soon — with the case sent back to a lower court to determine what is considered his 'official' versus 'unofficial' acts. Trump celebrated the decision, writing on Truth Social: 'Big win for our constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American!' A new report released by DNI Gabbard accused Obama of being behind a 'treasonous conspiracy' to fabricate what Trump repeatedly calls the Russia 'hoax' to bring him down. Gabbard made a series of criminal referrals to Pam Bondi's Justice Department and the agency is reportedly considering the request. Obama spoke out about the case via his spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush earlier this week, refuting many of the accusations circling around him. 'The bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction. Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes,' Rodenbush noted. 'These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio,' Rodenbush concluded. Regardless, GOP leadership in both the House and Senate are pursuing investigations into members of the Biden and Obama administrations as they fend off clamoring calls for transparency in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal enveloping the Trump administration. Democrats have portrayed the reintroduction of the 'Russian hoax' saga as a way for the Trump Administration to distract from the demands around Epstein. The president pointed the finger at Obama for trying to 'head a coup' with acolytes like former FBI Director James Comey and former DNI Director James Clapper doing his dirty work. Trump also called the Steele report, which examined his campaign's ties to Russia, as 'all lies' and a 'fabrication.' The Mueller Report found that while Russia did interfere in the 2016 election, the Trump campaign did not conspire or coordinate with the Russian government, despite at least 140 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian nationals. Trump was asked earlier this week who the Justice Department should investigate following the report's release for a potential criminal referral. He didn't hesitate to name Obama and top members of his security team. 'It would be President Obama – who started it – and Biden was there with him, and [James] Comey was there, and [James] Clapper, the whole group was there,' Trump responded. At another point, Trump said Attorney General Pam Bondi should 'act' on the matter – while also indicating it was at her discretion. 'We have a very competent, very good, very loyal to our country person in Pam Bondi – very respected. And she – it's going to be her decision,' Trump said. Trump repeated calls to prosecute a wide circle of former Democratic officials come after he posted AI-generated video images of Obama being arrested and thrown in jail wearing an orange jumpsuit. Trump accused his rivals of organizing a failed 'coup' in 2016, when he defeated Hillary Clinton and captured the White House. Trump has hammered his rivals for what he calls 'no collusion' ever since the release of the Mueller report, even though Mueller himself never used that phrase. His comments come six months into his second term, following a campaign where he both vowed 'retribution' but also said he would allow law enforcement officials to make their own decisions on who to charge.
Economist
a day ago
- Economist
Pedro Sánchez is fighting for his political life
AS SPANIARDS GO off on their summer holidays, Pedro Sánchez must be breathing a huge sigh of relief. In June, the shaken prime minister offered profuse apologies after Santos Cerdán, his right-hand man in the ruling Socialist Party, was remanded in prison to face charges of taking at least €620,000 ($730,000) in bribes on public-works contracts. Worse, Mr Cerdán's predecessor in the role, José Luis Ábalos, also faces trial before the Supreme Court for corruption (both men proclaim their innocence). Mr Sánchez told parliament this month that he considered resigning but 'throwing in the towel is not an option.' Neither his party nor his parliamentary allies (he leads a minority coalition government) have yet forced him to. But he is now on borrowed time, at the mercy of events. With two years to go before the next election must be called 'the government is a lame duck,' admits a senior Socialist.
