What we know from Australia mushroom poisoning trial as jury deliberates verdict
Mother-of-two Erin Patterson, 50, is charged with the 2023 murders of her former parents-in-law, Don and Gail Patterson, both 70, and Gail Patterson's sister, Heather Wilkinson, 66, along with the attempted murder of Reverend Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband.
The prosecution alleges she served guests beef wellington knowing it contained deadly death cap mushrooms, also known as Amanita phalloides.
Patterson denies all the charges, claiming the deaths were a "terrible accident".
The jury began deliberations on Monday after an intense nine-week trial at the Supreme Court of Victoria in which Patterson appeared in the witness box, as did the sole survivor of the alleged poisoning.
Here's what you need to know about the case.
An unexpected invitation
Patterson invited the four alleged victims for lunch at her home in Leongatha, a small town in Melbourne, on 29 July 2023.
Her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, was also invited but didn't attend. Text messages read out in court revealed Patterson found his decision not to come "really disappointing" as she had spent time and money preparing the "special meal".
He said he had listed them as financially separated on a tax return, which triggered a series of child support payments that meant he would no longer pay their two children's private school fees directly, he told the court.
Speaking to the court through tears, Mr Patterson said: "I was sure she was very upset about that."
Reverend Wilkinson said he and his wife were surprised by the invitation, telling the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC): "There was no reason given for the lunch, and I remember talking to Heather wondering why the sudden invitation."
But he said the pair were "very happy to be invited".
Patterson's daughter, according to ABC, told the court that her mother organised a trip to the cinema for her and her brother in advance of the lunch.
Sole survivor gives details about the lunch
Reverend Wilkinson told the court Heather and Gail offered to help plate up the food, but Patterson rejected the offer.
Each plate had a serving of mashed potatoes, green beans and an individual beef wellington.
Patterson said the mushrooms were a mixture of button mushrooms from a supermarket and dried mushrooms bought at an Asian grocery store several months ago, which were in a hand-labelled packet.
Reverend Wilkinson said the four guests were given large grey dinner plates, while Patterson ate from a smaller, tan-coloured plate.
He said he remembered his wife pointing this out after they became ill.
What makes death cap mushrooms so lethal?
The death cap is one of the most toxic mushrooms on the planet and is involved in the majority of fatal mushroom poisonings worldwide.
The species contains three main groups of toxins: amatoxins, phallotoxins, and virotoxins.
From these, amatoxins are primarily responsible for the toxic effects in humans.
The alpha-amanitin amatoxin has been found to cause protein deficit and ultimately cell death, although other mechanisms are thought to be involved.
The liver is the main organ that fails due to the poison, but other organs are also affected, most notably the kidneys.
The effects usually begin after a short latent period and include gastrointestinal disorders followed by jaundice, seizures, coma, and, eventually, death.
The reverend said he and his wife ate their full servings, while Don ate his own and half of his wife's.
Reverend Wilkinson said that after the meal, Patterson fabricated a cancer diagnosis, suggesting the lunch was put together so that she could ask them the best way to tell her children about the illness.
The prosecution said she did this to justify the children's absence.
The defence does not dispute that Patterson lied about having cancer.
When asked why she lied about her health, Patterson told the court it was partly to elicit sympathy from her husband's relatives, as she felt they were growing apart.
"I didn't want their care of me to stop, so I kept it going. I shouldn't have done it," she said, adding: "I did lie to them."
Defendant wanted to serve 'something special'
While on the stand at the beginning of June, Patterson said she might have accidentally included foraged mushrooms in the fatal lunch.
She said she brought expensive ingredients and researched ideas to find "something special" to serve. She said she deviated from her chosen recipe to improve the "bland" flavour.
However, she denied that a series of photos showing mushrooms placed on weighing scales in her kitchen was evidence she had been measuring a "fatal dose" to serve to her lunch guests.
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers asked: "I suggest that you were weighing these death cap mushrooms so that you could calculate the weight required for the administration of a fatal dose for one person. Agree or disagree?"
"Disagree," Patterson replied.
The mother of two said she began foraging for mushrooms around the towns of Korumburra and Leongatha during the COVID lockdowns in 2020 and would use a food dehydrator to dry and preserve them.
Prosecutors earlier claimed the defendant denied ever owning a food dehydrator, but police traced one owned by her to a nearby dump. It was later found to contain death cap mushrooms.
Two mobile phones she owned were also reset to factory status three times.
Patterson told the court she disposed of the dehydrator before a visit from child protection, who were investigating her living arrangements. She said the phones were wiped because she panicked during the police investigation.
"I was scared of the conversation that might flow about the meal and the dehydrator," she said.
"I was scared they would blame me for it, for making everyone sick. I was scared that they would remove the children."
Patterson talks through tears
Lawyer Mr Mandy also questioned Patterson about a series of expletive-laden messages she sent to friends about the Patterson family.
"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," Patterson told the court about the messages.
Talking through tears, she added: "I was really frustrated with Simon, but it wasn't Don and Gail's fault."
The court previously heard the relationship between Patterson and her estranged husband deteriorated shortly before the alleged murders due to a disagreement over child support.
Patterson's children 'ate leftovers after guests went to hospital'
All four alleged victims fell ill and were experiencing severe vomiting and diarrhoea by midnight on the day of the lunch.
Police previously said the symptoms of all four of those who became ill were consistent with poisoning from death cap mushrooms, which are responsible for 90% of all toxic mushroom-related fatalities.
Patterson says she also became ill hours after eating the meal.
Her daughter, according to the ABC, told the court she remembers Patterson telling her she had diarrhoea that night.
Patterson claims she and her children ate leftovers from the beef wellington on the same day. Her daughter told the court she remembered this, and that her mum didn't eat much because she was still feeling unwell.
The mum said she scraped the mushrooms off the plates in advance because she knew her children didn't like them.
Patterson went to hospital two days after the lunch, where she initially discharged herself against medical advice, the court was told.
A nurse at the hospital where she was treated told the court she "didn't look unwell like Ian and Heather", who were at the same hospital.
Gail and Heather died on Friday 4 August 2023, while Don died a day later.
Reverend Wilkinson spent seven weeks in hospital but survived.
Days after the deaths, police opened a homicide investigation and confirmed Patterson was a suspect. She was charged on 2 November 2023.
What must the jury decide?
The jury is tasked with deciding whether or not Patterson meant for her guests to die during the lunch.
The aim of the court case is not to determine motive, but prosecutors suggested a deteriorating relationship between Patterson and her estranged husband, as well as her exasperation with her former in-laws, which she expressed to friends on social media months before the deaths.
The defence say she had a positive and loving relationship with her lunch guests and had no motive to kill them.
She faces life in prison if convicted.
What is happening now?
A 14-member jury heard the case, but 12 were selected by ballot on Monday to decide the verdict.
The jury remains sequestered, meaning they will stay together in court-appointed accommodation until they reach a unanimous decision.
They cannot return a verdict outside of the court's sitting hours and members are barred from discussing the case outside the jury room - even with each other.
Sequestering, which aims to stop juries being influenced by outside factors, is rare in Australian courts, but Patterson's case has been incredibly high-profile, with national news outlets posting daily blogs about court proceedings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The M&S ‘Scattered Spider' hackers are coming for your holidays
If air traffic control strikes, errant drones and climate protesters weren't enough to contend with, the aviation industry has a new antagonist threatening to grind things to a halt: hackers. This week it emerged that the secretive 'Scattered Spider' group who attacked M&S and Co-op are targeting the aviation industry. Charles Carmakal, an executive at Google's cybersecurity unit, said that his firm was 'aware of multiple incidents in the airline and transportation sector which resemble the operations [of] Scattered Spider.' Sam Rubin, of Palo Alto Networks, said his company had 'observed Muddled Libra (also known as Scattered Spider) targeting the aviation industry.' While neither Rubin nor Carmakal specified which airlines have been targeted, Hawaiian Airlines and WestJet have recently suffered cyber attacks. WestJet said the incident affected 'some services and software systems' including its app, but neither airline suffered operational disruption due to the breach. The issue is not isolated to North America. On Monday June 30, Qantas suffered a major cyber attack, reportedly compromising the personal data of up to six million customers. A spokesperson for the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) told The Telegraph: 'We are aware of rumoured activity. We are in contact with the National Cyber Security Centre and have warned our industry contacts about this group and the techniques they use.' One of the things that the CAA would have told their industry contacts is that when Scattered Spider targets an industry, the attack tends to be sustained and relentless for a period. If aviation is next in line, how could a hack play out, and what can you do to protect your holiday? Worrying potential There are a few different avenues for the hackers. One would be to target airlines' corporate infrastructure. In 2018, 380,000 British Airways customers had their credit card details stolen in a major data breach. Bookings made in a two-week window had been infiltrated in a 'very sophisticated, malicious criminal' attack, according to the airline's former CEO Alex Cruz. The airline was later fined £20m for the security breach. A second scenario is that ground systems could be targeted. In 2015, Poland's flag carrier LOT cancelled 10 flights after hackers infiltrated the computer systems that issued flight plans from Warsaw's Chopin Airport. But the scale could be much bigger than this. In 2023, the US Federal Aviation Administration's 'Notice to Airmen' (NOTAM) system suffered a three-hour outage. The result was that all flights across the US were grounded for the first time since 9/11, leaving 11,000 aircraft stuck on tarmac across the country. While this was a hardware issue, not a malicious hack, it highlights the potential impact of a sudden IT meltdown. The third, and perhaps most worrying scenario, is that in-flight systems could be infiltrated. Earlier this year, several aircraft coming into land at Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington DC received false mid-air collision warnings, even though there were no other planes in the area. The pilots receiving the alerts disconnected autopilot and climbed rapidly. It is unknown whether this was caused by the deliberate, malicious 'spoofing' of airline systems, or if it was due to an error or another cause. Regardless, it is an example of how hackers could potentially enter the cockpit in the future, putting pilots into compromised scenarios. This week's Qantas data breach suggests hackers are already targeting the databases of airlines. But given the nature of Scattered Spider's previous high-profile, high-impact attacks, scenarios two or three should not be ruled out. 'Hacking groups thrive on attention, and with families about to start jetting off on their summer holidays, the potential to attack and extort an airline is irresistible,' says Matt Saunders of Adaptavist, a tech consultancy which works with major airlines. 'The good news is that a potential hacking attempt should not cause safety issues for passengers, as any safety-critical IT systems will already have a manual backup option which maintains the highest safety standards in the event of an unwelcome intrusion,' he added. How to hack-proof your holiday There are steps that we, the passenger, can take to protect ourselves from cyber attacks. Paying for your holiday with a credit card is preferable; if somebody makes unauthorised payments on your card you will be protected by the Consumer Credit Act, meaning the process of reclaiming your lost funds will be more straightforward. Regularly changing the password for your online account with an airline's website or app will also help to protect it from the rising issue of air-mile theft. And, as always, avoid booking tickets on public Wi-Fi networks which might not be encrypted, potentially putting your data at risk. When it comes to the larger scale hacking incidents, we can only rely on the strength of airline security systems – which are, by all accounts, becoming more powerful. In 2024 alone, the aviation industry spent $37bn (£27bn) on IT systems, and airports spent $9bn (£6.5bn). Around half of airlines and three quarters of airports are in the process of safeguarding data and upgrading IT systems. 'Defending against these risks requires more than perimeter controls – it demands continuous workforce education, Zero Trust principles, phish-resistant multi-factor authentication and identity verification that can't be socially engineered,' stresses Jordan Avnaim of identity security company, Entrust. Recent cyber attacks on Hawaiian, WestJet and Qantas did not affect flight operations, which should give us hope. Nevertheless, the fact that the shelves in some M&S stores were empty for six weeks and its online orders were suspended – to the sum of £300m – shows why airports, airlines and passengers should remain on high alert.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Read the chilling text parents were sent at daycare centre where worker is accused of vile abuse of children - as they speak out about their nightmare
A disturbing text message sent to parents whose children could have had contact with accused predator Joshua Dale Brown has been revealed. Brown has been charged with 70 offences, including sexual penetration of a child, producing child abuse material and recklessly contaminating goods to cause alarm or anxiety. The latter charge refers to alleged contamination of food with bodily fluids. His arrest triggered a public health alert, with Victoria's Chief Health Officer warning that 1,200 children should get STI testing. A mass text message was sent to families linked to childcare centres where Brown worked. One mother, whose identity is protected for legal reasons, has spoken publicly after discovering her child had attended a centre where Brown was employed. The woman received a text message and said getting further information was difficult. 'I was on hold with the Victorian Government hotline for three hours,' she told the ABC, and added she went to the centre in person and encountered a distraught staff member. 'They told me there had been a person who had been charged with sexual abuse and things related to children and that person had worked in the centre at a point in time as well,' Julie said. The message the woman and others families received urged their children, who are under the age of five, to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases. 'Thank you for speaking with me today. It is recommended your child be tested for chlamydia and gonorrhoea. Please show this message to your urgent care clinic.' it said. The woman said she was furious about how little direct communication was given, and said she only learned about the allegations when the news broke publicly. Chief Health Officer Christian McGrath acknowledged the delays but said 1300 families were supported over the phone on Tuesday. 'I should have been contacted earlier, particularly before the media release. I shouldn't be finding out off the TV,' the mother said. It was revealed on Wednesday that a second Victorian man has been charged with 45 child sex offences as part of the police investigation into Brown. Michael Simon Wilson has been charged with offences including bestiality, rape and possession of child abuse material, according to court documents seen by the ABC. It is understood Brown and Wilson are known to each other, but Wilson's charges are not connected to any childcare centre and involve different alleged victims. Federal law reforms have been flagged after the allegations were revealed, including cutting funding for childcare centres that fail to meet minimum standards. The rapid government response, however, doesn't tackle the root causes of issues in a sector where half of all educators had been working for less than three years, early education advocate Lisa Bryant said. The industry has a highly casualised and underpaid workforce and it was dominated by private operators whose motive was to make money, she said. 'The primary thing about making money is that you cut the number of educators and the quality of the educators,' Ms Bryant said. 'If you're working with the same educators and the children all know you, that's really protective. Having a lot of casuals coming through your centre is not.' Brown had worked at 20 childcare facilities since 2017. Families of children who need testing will be entitled to $5000 payments to cover the cost of parents taking leave from work, travel and other requirements. The Victorian government has ordered a child safety review. It must be completed by August 15, with making CCTV mandatory in centres a major focus. 'It's a deterrent, if nothing else,' Premier Jacinta Allan said. Wilson and Brown will both appear at Melbourne Magistrates' Court on September 15.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Ex-wife loses Supreme Court fight against retired banker over the £80m he gave her in a bid to avoid tax - before she divorced him and kept the money
An ex-wife of a retired banker has lost a Supreme Court battle over an £80million sum he granted her in an attempt to avoid tax before their divorce. Clive Standish, 70, a sheep farming tycoon and former chief financial officer of banking giant UBS, we d Anna Standish, 56, in December 2005. But the couple separated in 2020 after a 15-year marriage, during which they had two children. The marital assets at the time of the split amounted to £132million, almost all of which had grown from the £57.3million fortune Mr Standish brought into the marriage. He retired in 2007, living off the profits of a £28million sheep farm in Australia, while the couple enjoyed life in 18-bedroom mansion Moundsmere Manor, set in 83 acres near Hampshire village Preston Candover. The court heard of Mr Standish's worries about changes to the inheritance tax regime announced in 2016 by HM Revenue and Customs. He feared these would expose his personal assets to a 40 per cent levy on his death. He then transferred £80million-worth of assets to his wife in 2017, with a plan for them to eventually be placed in an offshore trust for the benefit of their children. But the marriage hit the rocks before that could happen, leaving the couple estranged and Mrs Standish claiming the £80million was hers outright. She said it had been 'gifted' to her and so should form part of the matrimonial pot to share on divorce. Mr Justice Moor ruled in the divorce courts in December 2023 that Mr Standish should get £87.6million of the total family wealth valued at a total £132,648,326, with his wife walking away with £45million. That decision was made using the so-called 'sharing principle' of dividing the family fortune. Mrs Standish was said to have insisted the £80million was 'matrimonial' money to be divided equally, despite bringing 'no significant wealth' of her own into the marriage. Last year the Court of Appeal cut her payout, ruling that the 'fair outcome' of the case would leave Mrs Standish with £25million rather than £45million. She has since taken the case to the Supreme Court in a bid to get the ruling overturned and reclaim the extra £20million. But today five of England and Wales' most senior judges upheld the earlier verdict, saying that the £80million had not been turned into 'matrimonial assets' simply because it was put in her name to avoid tax. The court ruling stated: 'Tax planning schemes to save tax, involving transfers of assets from one spouse to another, are commonplace. 'The problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them. 'Rather, the transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance tax and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children. 'The parties' intention was that the £80million should not be retained by the wife.' Tim Bishop KC, for Mr Standish, had said during the Court of Appeal hearing that the husband had 'a very successful career in banking'. He told the judges that in June 2004 his client was worth £57.3million, while Mrs Standish had 'no significant pre-marital wealth'. Mr Standish is British but moved to Australia in 1976 before moving back to England with his family in 2010. That potentially left him open to a huge inheritance tax hit when prospective changes were announced in 2016 - affecting anyone with a British domicile of origin returning to the UK from a country they had made their new permanent home. In the face of this, he 'commenced a process to shield his property from IHT' by 'transferring his assets to the wife to hold for a period and for the wife then to settle the transferred assets into a trust', the court was told. Mr Bishop said: 'The husband made the transfers in March 2017, but the wife failed to transfer the assets into trust by the time the marriage ran into problems in 2019 and then broke down finally in 2020.' Mr Standish's barrister criticised the divorce judge's eventual division of the assets last December as 'unfair'. Mr Bishop argued it had been wrong for the £80million to have been regarded as 'matrimonialised' property, rather than the personal property of the husband and not to go into the pot for division. The Court of Appeal went on to rule that 25 per cent of the £80million should be shared, as that money had been made by the husband during a time when he was being supported by his 'homemaker' but that the rest should not - cutting her divorce payout by £20million. For Mrs Standish, Richard Todd KC said the £80million was her property and everything else apart from the sheep farm ought to be equally split - leaving the former spouses with £56.3million apiece. But delivering the Supreme Court ruling, Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens, with whom Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd Jones and Lady Simler agreed, said the Appeal Court had got it right. They said: 'Here, the source of the pre-marital assets within the 2017 assets was exclusively the husband. 'Those assets have been transferred to the wife. But the problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them. 'Rather, the transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance tax and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children. 'The parties' intention was that the £80million should not be retained by the wife but should be used by her to set up trusts for the children, thereby negating inheritance tax. 'In short, there was no matrimonialisation of the 2017 assets because, first, the transfer was to save tax and, secondly, it was for the benefit of the children not the wife. 'The 2017 assets were not, therefore, being treated by the husband and wife for any period of time as an asset that was shared between them. 'In relation to a scheme designed to save tax, under which one spouse transfers an asset to the other spouse, the parties' dealings with the asset, irrespective of the time period involved, do not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared between them. Rather, the intention is simply to save tax. 'Transfers of capital assets with the intention of saving tax do not, without some further compelling evidence, establish that the parties are treating the capital asset as shared between them. 'The 2017 assets comprise, first, the husband's pre-marital assets and, secondly, earnings that the husband made in the years 2004-2007 to which the wife contributed by being the home-maker and childcarer during those years. 'It is not in dispute that the latter constitutes matrimonial property. That should be shared on an equal basis. 'The Court of Appeal assessed the latter, i.e. the matrimonial property, as comprising 25% of the £80million.' The judges said that meant that 25 per cent 'was to be shared equally, and the former, i.e. the pre-marital assets/non-matrimonial property, as comprising 75 per cent of the £80million'. They added: 'We see no reason to interfere with that assessment. The decision and orders of the Court of Appeal should therefore be upheld. For all these reasons, we would dismiss the appeal.' Legal experts have responded by describing the judgment as a 'landmark ruling' - and suggesting it offered a cautionary note to many other couples. Aasha Choudhary, family law partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau, said: 'Merely transferring assets into joint names or to a spouse does not automatically transform them into matrimonial property, unless there is clear and documented intention to share an asset. 'While it may not be the most romantic topic before a wedding, this decision is a timely reminder of the value of prenuptial agreements. 'Divorces can be emotionally fraught, and decisions made during a separation don't always reflect long-term intentions. 'A well-drafted prenup allows both parties to set expectations early and protect their respective interests with transparency and fairness, saving the financial and emotional cost of litigation. 'Most crucially, this ruling makes it clear that if couples want a non-matrimonial asset to become shared property, it must be recorded clearly. 'Without that, the default position may now lean toward such assets remaining non-matrimonial, a major shift in the legal landscape.'
