Erin Patterson: Texts reveal breakdown in mushroom killer's marriage

West Australian

19 hours ago

A series of messages tendered into evidence in Erin Patterson's triple-murder trial provide a stark insight into the decline of her relationships.
Patterson, 50, was found guilty of murdering three members of her husband Simon Patterson's family and the attempted murder of a fourth with a beef wellington lunch on July 29, 2023.
She had pleaded not guilty, with her defence arguing the case was a tragic accident and Patterson did not intentionally poison the meal with death cap mushrooms.
Don and Gail Patterson and Gail's younger sister, Heather Wilkinson, died in the week following the lunch while Heather's husband, Ian Wilkinson, recovered following a month and a half in hospital.
During the trial, the jury heard Patterson and her husband had separated in 2015 but spent much of the following years maintaining an amicable relationship.
Continuing to co-parent their two children, the couple remained friends and attended family events together and took family holidays.
But, the jury was told, their relationship began to sour in the latter half of 2022.
Simon Patterson gave evidence he understood this occurred after he was listed as separated on his tax return for the first time, believing this to have financial consequences for Patterson.
Patterson herself disputed this account, but told the jury the relationship first began to change weeks later after Simon began refusing to pay medical bills and school fees.
Messages sent from Patterson to a Facebook chat group with women she'd grown close to online over a period of four days in December 2022 captured her 'true feelings', prosecutors alleged.
But in emotional testimony, Patterson said she regretted sending those messages and that she'd unfairly directed her frustration with Simon onto his parents.
'I wish I'd never said it. I feel ashamed for saying it and I wish that the family didn't have to hear that I said that,' she said.
'They didn't deserve it.'
Beginning on December 6 at 10.19am, the Facebook user Erin ErinErin, who Patterson identified as herself, vented that Don had contacted her to say he and Gail had tried to get Simon's side but 'he refused to talk about it'.
'So Don said they can't adjudicate if they don't know both sides and Simon won't give his side. (emoji),' the message continues.
'So he said all he can ask is that Simon and I get together to pray for the children (emoji) (emoji) this family I swear to f--king God.
'I said to him about fifty times yesterday that I didn't want them to adjudicate (emoji) nobody bloody listens to me. At least I know they're a lost cause.'
Responses from the other women in the group were edited out of the logs shown to the jury, but Patterson responds questioning if 'they've got any capacity for self reflection at all?'
'I mean clearly the fact that Simon refuses to talk about personal issue in part stems from the behaviour of his parents and how they operate, according to them they have never asked him what's going on with us, why I keep kicking him out, why his son hates him etc, it's too awkward or uncomfortable or something,' she wrote.
'So that's learned behaviour. Just don't talk about this s--t.'
Patterson continues by saying she'd received a call from Don the previous night suggesting Simon and her 'get together and try to talk and pray together'.
'... he also said Simon had indicated there was a solution to the financial issues if I withdraw the child support claim!' the messages continue.
'My head nearly exploded and I was like what?? And Don goes oh sorry just ignore what I said I don't want to get involved.
'So anyway I sent a group message to them all last night saying how Simon is behaving is unconscionable and asking me to withdraw the child support claim is wrong and disadvantages me and his children and how dare he etc.'
The messages continue, with Patterson explaining Don had told her Gail and him 'didn't want to get involved in the financial things'.
She writes she told Don she understands it was 'uncomfortable and awkward for them' but that Simon needs to be held accountable.
'I would hope they care about their grandchildren enough to care about what Simon is doing,' she writes.
Patterson wrote Don had told her Simon refused to talk about their issues so Gail and he would be staying out of it.
'I'm sick of this s--t I want nothing to do with them,' she said.
'I thought his parents would want him to do the right thing but it seems their concern about not wanting to feel uncomfortable and not wanting to get involved in their sons personal matters are overriding that so f--k em.'
The following day at 11.20am, Patterson writes that both Simon and his parents had messaged her the previous day but she did not want to read them.
'I don't want to hear it. Simon's will just be horrible and be gaslighting and abusive and it will ruin my day and his parents will be more weasel words about not getting involved so I think I'm going to just move on,' the message reads.
Patterson then goes on to say Don and Gail had taken their son's side and suggested if their daughter was 'laying all the same complaints' against her husband, they would believe her.
'If their daughter's husband just walked away and refused to support her kids they would have things to say to him but by refusing to hold Simon to account they've made it clear his word means more than mine,' she writes.
'They've had Simon for tea every night for three months and never once picked up the phone to me since the separation and asked if I'm okay and need help.
'So that tells me their choices. Simon wants to walk away from his responsibilities too. Well that's his choice.'
She goes on to write that maybe this is a 'blessing in disguise' and if Simon doesn't want to contribute to their children's private school fees, she could unilaterally decide to change schools.
Two days later, on December 9, 2022, Patterson wrote one further message saying Simon's mum was 'horrified' she'd claimed child support for their two children.
'Why isn't she horrified her son is such a deadbeat that I had no choice but to claim?'
In her closing address, senior Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC described the messages as 'bitter' and 'angry', suggesting the divide between Patterson and her in-laws was 'deeper than they ever knew'.
Dr Rogers argued Patterson had expressed her 'real feelings' towards her husband's family to her online friends.
'The point of this evidence is that it shows, we say, that the accused was leading a duplicitous life when it came to the Pattersons,' she said.
'When Don and Gail sent the accused messages about her ongoing financial issues with Simon and mentioned praying, she replied with an eye roll emoji.
'She was mocking them and their religious beliefs, despite attending church with them.'
Patterson's defence, on the other hand, argued it was an 'entirely unremarkable minor blow up'.
'It stands out in this case because it's the only one. These people are eternally polite to one another,' barrister Colin Mandy SC said.
Mr Mandy argued the messages actually depicted Patterson venting to a supportive group of friends, suggesting jurors might think that was actually healthy.
They (the prosecution) say to you ignore the long history of love and support … and instead rely on three days of upset from Erin and recollections of these online friends,' he said.
'This was an aberration in her dealings with the Pattersons and there's nothing to say otherwise.'
The barrister suggested that the only reason these messages were before the jury was the prosecution scratching around to find some reason to explain why she would deliberately poison the beef wellington.
'They want to try and show that there was some kind of difficulty in the relationship between Erin and Simon and that that, 22 therefore, that might provide a reason for her to murder his parents and his aunt and uncle six months later, seven months later,' he argued.
'Even just saying it aloud demonstrates, in our submission to you, how unpersuasive that argument is.'
Patterson will return to court at a later date.