logo
Australian woman Erin Patterson is convicted of 3 murders for poisoning her in-laws with mushrooms

Australian woman Erin Patterson is convicted of 3 murders for poisoning her in-laws with mushrooms

The Hindua day ago
Australian woman Erin Patterson was Monday (July 7, 2025) 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 later, but a date for the hearing hasn't yet been scheduled.
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 the 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 wasn't 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 didn't know were death caps. 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.
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.
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 didn't go, deteriorated in the year before the deaths, the prosecution said.
The simplest facts of what happened that day and immediately afterward 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 scrutinized 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 didn't become ill when the other diners did, and why she disposed of a food dehydrator after the deaths and told investigators that she didn't own one.
Patterson acknowledged some lies during her evidence — including that she'd never foraged mushrooms or owned a dehydrator. But she said that those claims were made in panic as she realized her meal had killed people.
She said she didn't 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.
The bizarre and tragic case has lingered in the minds of Australians and has provoked fervor among the public and media. During the trial, five separate podcasts analyzed each day of the proceedings and several news outlets ran live blogs giving moment-by-moment accounts of more than two months of evidence.
At least one television drama and a documentary about the case are slated for production. Prominent Australian crime writers were seen in court throughout the trial.
As it emerged half an hour before the verdict that court was reconvening, about 40 members of the public queued outside the courthouse in the rural town of Morwell in hope of watching the outcome in person. News outlets reported that family members of the victims were not among those present.
Before the verdict, newspapers published photos of black privacy screens erected at the entrance to Erin Patterson's home. Dozens of reporters from throughout Australia and from news outlets abroad crowded around friends of Patterson's as they left the courthouse Monday.
'I'm saddened, but it is what it is,' said one friend, Ali Rose, who wore sunglasses and fought back tears. Asked what she thought Patterson felt as the verdicts were read, Rose said, 'I don't know.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

WBSSC scam: Job losing staff's protest march to state secretariat today
WBSSC scam: Job losing staff's protest march to state secretariat today

Hans India

timean hour ago

  • Hans India

WBSSC scam: Job losing staff's protest march to state secretariat today

A section of the non-teaching staff in Group-C and Group-D categories in state-run schools of West Bengal, who have lost their jobs following a Supreme Court order in April this year, will be conducting a "march to the state secretariat" on Tuesday afternoon. This section of the non-teaching staff, united under the banner of "Group-C & Group-D Adhikar Mancha (Group-C & Group-D Rights Forum)", will conduct a rally to press a four-point demand from the state government in resolving the ongoing impasse. The forum has calculated that of the total non-teaching jobs cancelled following the Supreme Court order in April this year, a total of 3,395 were "untainted" and hence should be reinstated, while the jobs of the identified "tainted" ones should be terminated immediately. Their second demand is the immediate publication of certified copies of the "untainted" non-teaching staff by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). Their third demand is the immediate publication of all the optical mark recognition (OMR) recognition sheets used in the written examination for recruitment, so that it becomes clear who was "tainted". The fourth and final demand is that the state government should work out some alternatives for the time being but only for the "untainted" ones and excluding the "tainted" ones. The untainted staff will start assembling in front of Howrah Maidan Metro station in Kolkata-adjacent Howrah district from 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday onwards and thereafter march toward the state secretariat, Nabanna located at Mandirtala, also in Howrah district. Initially, they decided to conduct the rally on July 3. However, being denied police permission to conduct the rally on that day, they finalised Tuesday as the date for the protest programme. "We had several rounds of meetings with WBSSC on the matter. However, the latter was unable to come out with any specific solution. So ultimately we were forced to give this protest call," said a representative for the forum. Meanwhile, security arrangements in and around Nabanna have been tightened over this protest march. A three-tier security system has already been raised around the state secretariat. All the roads connecting to Nabanna have been blocked with barricades.

Espionage case: YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra's custody extended by another 14 days
Espionage case: YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra's custody extended by another 14 days

Hindustan Times

time2 hours ago

  • Hindustan Times

Espionage case: YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra's custody extended by another 14 days

A local court on Monday extended the judicial custody of social media influencer Jyoti Malhotra, arrested in an espionage case on May 16, by another 14 days. The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for July 21. Jyoti Malhotra The 33-year-old was produced before the court via video conferencing. Earlier, her bail plea was rejected on June 12 after police raised objections, arguing that her release could hinder the ongoing investigation. This is the fourth extension of her judicial custody. Previously, the court had extended her remand on June 9 and June 23, each time by 14 days. She was first sent to judicial custody on May 26. Her lawyer, Kumar Mukesh, has contested the charges listed in the first information report (FIR). He argued that while the alleged incident took place in 2023—when the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was in force—the Hisar police booked her under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced Section 124-A (sedition) of the IPC. Mukesh pointed out that Section 124-A had been kept in abeyance by the Supreme Court and therefore could not be used for prosecution. He further claimed that the FIR was based on her statements during questioning on May 15, which he says violates the legal principle that no individual can be compelled to be a witness against themselves.

Abu Salem told to approach SC for clarity on remission in 1993 blasts case
Abu Salem told to approach SC for clarity on remission in 1993 blasts case

Hindustan Times

time3 hours ago

  • Hindustan Times

Abu Salem told to approach SC for clarity on remission in 1993 blasts case

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday directed gangster Abu Salem to approach the Supreme Court for clarification on whether he is entitled to remission while serving a life sentence in two Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) cases, including the 1993 Mumbai serial bombings. Mumbai : Underworld don Abu Salem walks out of the Sessions Court after a hearing in Mumbai on Wednesday. PTI Photo by Mitesh Bhuvad (PTI1_18_2012_000148A) (PTI) {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} A division bench of Justice Ajey Gadkari and Justice Rajesh Patil was hearing Salem's plea seeking early release on the grounds that he would complete 25 years of imprisonment by March 31, 2025. Salem argued that his release was mandated under the terms of his 2005 extradition from Portugal, in which the Indian government had given a solemn assurance to Portuguese authorities that he would not be sentenced to death or imprisoned for more than 25 years. {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} The confusion stems from the fact that Salem was arrested in one case on October 11, 2005, and in another on October 24, 2005. He was later convicted in both cases on February 25, 2015, and September 7, 2017, respectively. In July 2024, he had moved a special TADA court seeking a tentative date of release, but the court declined to consider remission, citing the grave nature of the offences. {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} In July 2022, while deciding Salem's appeals against convictions in both cases, the Supreme Court observed that Salem's sentence must be computed from October 12, 2005, the date of his arrest, and that he was entitled to release upon completing 25 years in custody. The apex court also stated that the Centre would be bound to advise the President under Article 72 of the Constitution once this term was completed. {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} In July 2022, while deciding Salem's appeals against convictions in both cases, the Supreme Court observed that Salem's sentence must be computed from October 12, 2005, the date of his arrest, and that he was entitled to release upon completing 25 years in custody. The apex court also stated that the Centre would be bound to advise the President under Article 72 of the Constitution once this term was completed. {{/usCountry}} Read More {{^usCountry}} On Monday, however, additional solicitor general Anil Singh contended that Salem was conflating separate conviction periods to claim that he had already completed 24 years and nine months of detention by the time he approached the TADA court. Singh submitted that, as per the Ministry of Home Affairs' calculation, Salem had only completed 19 years, five months, and 21 days of imprisonment. {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} On Monday, however, additional solicitor general Anil Singh contended that Salem was conflating separate conviction periods to claim that he had already completed 24 years and nine months of detention by the time he approached the TADA court. Singh submitted that, as per the Ministry of Home Affairs' calculation, Salem had only completed 19 years, five months, and 21 days of imprisonment. {{/usCountry}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} Salem's counsel, senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, insisted that both sentences were running concurrently and, taking into account his pre-trial custody, time served, and jail-earned remission, Salem had effectively completed 25 years on March 31, 2025. 'They are not considering my jail-earned remission,' Malhotra told the court. Remission can be granted on various grounds, including good behaviour and completion of a portion of the sentence. However, the high court pointed out that the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling made no mention of remission. 'Do you want us to say something that the Supreme Court has not said?' the bench asked. 'This clarification needs to come from the Supreme Court,' it added. The bench admitted Salem's petition but declined interim relief, stating that it would be heard in due course. {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store