Explosive defence argument revealed about why Erin Patterson got sick before any of her lunch guests - as the prosecution case is picked apart

Daily Mail​

18-06-2025

Erin Patterson 's early onset of illness after serving deadly beef Wellingtons to her lunch guests was brought on by her preparation of the meal, a jury has heard.
On Wednesday, Patterson's barrister Colin Mandy, SC continued to outline his client's defence against claims she deliberately served poisoned pastry meals to the relatives of her estranged husband Simon Patterson.
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 had been a big mistake.
The jury has previously heard Ms Patterson claimed to have become ill shortly after the fateful lunch while her guests became sick much later, around midnight.
'There's a sensible reason for that, because in the morning, several hours before the guests arrived, she was stirring and tasting the duxelle,' Mr Mandy told the jury.
'She was preparing that part of the meal. She was tasting it and that's why she added the dried mushrooms to it. So at least a few hours before anyone else ate any, she had had some.'
The jury has heard prosecutors claim that Patterson was never sick from what she ate at the lunch and had simply pretended to be, so as to cover-up her alleged crime.
Dr Rogers told the jury medical tests revealed Patterson had no signs of death cap poisoning, unlike her guests who suffered severe symptoms, including organ failure.
She argued that Patterson fabricated symptoms, such as vomiting after eating cake, to appear sick like her guests.
'We suggest that if the accused had truly vomited ... that is a detail she would have shared with medical staff,' Dr Rogers said.
'The fact that she never made any mention of it should cause you to seriously doubt this claim and we suggest, reject ... [this claim] as a lie.'
Mr Mandy said Patterson's claim that she vomited after the lunch ought be treated as truthful.
The court heard Patterson claimed she had vomited shortly after the lunch ended, around 2.45pm.
'Now if that was a lie, members of the jury, to encourage you to think that the poison had all left her body, she surely would've said to you that it happened as soon as the guests left,' Mr Mandy said.
Mr Mandy also suggested Patterson's evidence that she couldn't remember what was in her vomit ought also be treated as the truth.
'She can't be more precise about the contents of her stomach. If she was lying, if she was lying to you, she would say, ''oh look, when I threw up, I could clearly recognise pastry and meat and mushrooms in there. Absolutely categorically it all came up'',' Mr Mandy said.
'If she was lying, that's what she'd say. But instead she says, 'I don't know, it's vomit'. If she was lying, she would've said, ''I threw up immediately and I could clearly see everything''. She didn't say that to you.'
Mr Mandy further suggested Patterson did not become as sick as her lunch guests due to a number of significant factors.
He said expert evidence suggested people who consumed the same amount of toxin could react in different ways.
'People can eat the same meal, some develop a higher grade, some develop a lower grade of the severity of the illness,' Mr Mandy said.
He told the jury there could have been a variation in toxicity from one person's portion to another.
And some people have different reactions upon consuming toxins, he said.
'So some people have a better toxic response than others. Yes. So depending on an individual's tolerance to that particular toxin or their physiological response that may be different,' Mr Mandy said.
Expert evidence further suggested the age of the individual could also play a factor as could the weight of the person.
'Obviously weight is a factor,' Mr Mandy said.
'As you know, Erin weighed over a hundred kilos. Age is a factor. She's significantly younger than the other guests.'
Mr Mandy accused the prosecution of providing 'misleading impressions' to jurors during Dr Rogers' closing address.
'So Dr Rogers yesterday in her closing argument, invited you to think about what you would do in this situation if this was really just a horrible accident,' he said.
'And what the Crown was asking you to do is to engage in an exercise which might be dangerous and seductive, but it's not appropriate because it involves hindsight reasons.
'And hindsight reasoning is dangerous because it distorts how we evaluate decisions and actions that occurred in the past.'
Mr Mandy further accused lone lunch guest survivor Ian Wilkinson of providing the jury incorrect evidence when he described Patterson eating her meal off a different coloured plate.
'It has to be the case that Ian Wilkinson is wrong about what he said. It makes no sense logically that you would use that method to deliver up an unpoisoned parcel, but otherwise, on all of the evidence, he's wrong; honestly mistaken,' Mr Mandy said.
He also said Mr Wilkinson was wrong about the colour of Patterson's other plates, which he had described as being grey.
'Erin and Simon were far more familiar with the crockery in the house than Ian was, and so we submit to you that you would have to find, on a proper and analytical examination of that evidence, that he wasn't right about those plates. Honestly mistaken,' Mr Mandy said.
Mr Mandy also claimed it would have made more sense for Patterson to simply mark the 'safe Wellington' on the pastry rather than serve it on a different coloured plate.
We submit to you there is only one logical way of getting around that problem if this was your plan, and that would be to mark the unpoisoned one, it's wrapped in pastry, in some way, so that you can recognise it and differentiate it from the others,' Mr Mandy said.
'Easy to do, pastry, in which case you would not need different coloured plates.'
He urged the jury to consider why his client would have 'lured' her lunch guests to lunch with a tale about a false cancer diagnosis if they did not discuss the issue until after they had all eaten the Wellingtons.
'On the Crown case, her object had already been achieved,' he said.
'The only rational conclusion … is the lie about cancer has absolutely nothing to do with the intention to kill, if there was one.'