Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates: Jury continues deliberations for a third day as the world awaits verdict in marathon murder trial
On Monday afternoon, two jurors were balloted out leaving 12 to decide Erin Patterson's (pictured) fate.
The jury deliberated all day Tuesday but no verdict was reached.
The five women and seven men will resume their deliberations this morning meaning there is a possibility a verdict in the murder trial, which has garnered worldwide attention, could come as early as today.
Patterson, 50, is accused of murdering her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson, after allegedly serving them a beef Wellington lunch made with death cap mushrooms.
Patterson is also accused of attempting to murder Heather's husband, pastor Ian Wilkinson, who survived the lunch after spending several weeks in an intensive care unit.
The court heard Patterson's estranged husband, Simon was also invited to the gathering at her home in Leongatha, in Victoria's Gippsland region, but didn't attend.
Witnesses told the jury that Patterson ate her serving from a smaller, differently-coloured plate to those of her guests, who ate off four grey plates.
Patterson told authorities she bought dried mushrooms from an unnamed Asian store in the Monash area of Melbourne, but health inspectors could find no evidence of this.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 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
34 minutes 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.'
