One word on a tax return set off a lethal chain of events
Loading
'Before that we hadn't gotten the government involved in the fact we were separated at all before,' Simon said. 'She said that it mattered, I think, for the family tax benefit, something of that nature. And so, she would be obliged to claim child support off of me, which had never happened before.'
Simon told the court his tax status was changed as a result of a miscommunication between him and his accountant. He said Erin rejected his efforts to revert it.
From then on, Simon said, communication became more functional and less 'chatty'.
'That was probably the first thing that made me feel that there was a substantial change in our relationship, that before that, our habit for years was to message each other a lot, in a chatty way, and the chatty nature of it pretty much stopped,' he said.
He said that a few weeks later, Erin applied for child support. She was also keen for him to sign a form stipulating that they would each pay half of the children's school fees.
However, Simon told Erin he had been advised by government staff not to do so, as the school fees would be covered in the child support payments.
'I'm sure she was very upset about that,' Simon told the jury.
About seven months later, Simon Patterson's parents and aunt and uncle lay critically unwell in the Austin Hospital from death cap mushroom poisoning.
The prosecution case was the killer had lured the family to lunch at her home under the guise of telling them she had cancer. Medical records would later show this was never the case.
It wouldn't be until November 2023, four months after the lunch, that police would make an arrest. Erin Patterson was charged with three counts of murder and one of attempted murder.
Other charges – three counts of attempted murder relating to estranged husband Simon Patterson – were dropped on the eve of the high-profile murder trial.
During the trial the jury heard from more than 50 witnesses. They included the surviving lunch guest Ian Wilkinson, Simon Patterson, other Wilkinson and Patterson family members, medical witnesses and online friends of Erin Patterson.
The jury also heard from mushroom and toxin experts, the manager of a local tip where Erin's dehydrator – laden with death cap toxins – was found dumped, alongside a phone tower expert, health officers and homicide squad detectives.
Loading
During the trial, the jury heard Erin Patterson had lied about having cancer to lure family members to her home for lunch on July 29, 2023, and about getting rid of the black Sunbeam food dehydrator in the e-waste section of the local tip in the aftermath of the fatal meal.
When the lunch guests arrived, the jury heard, Erin served beef Wellington on different coloured plates to her own to deliberately poison them.
'I noticed Erin had put her food on a different plate to us. Her plate had colour on it, I wondered why that was,' Heather Wilkinson told family before she died.
Hours after the lunch, all four guests fell ill. Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson died at the Austin Hospital on August 4 and 5, while Ian Wilkinson survived after a lengthy stay in hospital.
Erin Patterson had gone to Leongatha hospital complaining of not feeling well, but left after telling staff she was not prepared to stay, sparking a triple-0 call to police to try to find the now 50-year-old. She later returned to hospital and was found to be suffering from gastro-like symptoms but no significant illnesses.
The jury also heard that in the months leading up to the lunch, Erin posted messages in a Facebook chat group about dehydrating mushrooms, including sharing in the chat that she had bought a food dehydrator. She posted photos of the new appliance on her kitchen bench.
By this point Erin Patterson's ill will towards her estranged husband was extending to her in-laws.
She also told her online friends, using an account name of Erin Erin Erin, that Simon Patterson was a 'deadbeat' father, and Don and Gail Patterson were 'a lost cause' the year before the lunch.
She complained that Simon Patterson had refused to talk about his side of a shared issue, after which his father, Don, had said he was unable to adjudicate between the pair, instead urging them to get together and pray.
'This family I swear to f---ing god,' the post read.
'I said to him about 50 times yesterday that I didn't want them to adjudicate. Nobody bloody listens to me, at least I know they're a lost cause.'
As the conversation continued, the court heard, more posts were made including some discussing difficulties in obtaining child support, and suggestions from Simon's family that she withdraw her claim.
In one message, Erin wondered if Simon Patterson had any capacity for self-reflection, and said his refusal to talk about personal issues appeared to be a 'learned behaviour' from his parents to not 'talk about this shit'.
Loading
She complained he 'needs to be accountable' for his decision-making that was hurting their children.
'I'm sick of this shit I want nothing to do with them,' the post read. 'F--- them.'
'I don't need anything from these people.'
'Simon wants to walk away from his responsibilities. If he wants them to go to a private Christian school, he can help pay for it.
'His mum was horrified that I had claimed child support. Why isn't she horrified that her son is such a deadbeat that I had no choice but to claim?'
Phone tower data aired in court suggested Erin Patterson was in the Loch and Outtrim areas, in South Gippsland, soon after posts were made on a citizen scientist website about sightings of death cap mushrooms growing in the wild.
After three of the lunch guests died, police searched her home, discovering one of her phones was factory reset a number of times over a 48-hour period, including remotely the day after the police raid. One of her phones was never found.
Erin's defence team, led by Colin Mandy, SC, maintained the poisoning was nothing more than 'a tragedy and a terrible accident'.
On day one of the trial, he said his client admitted, for the first time, that she did forage mushrooms but denied ever deliberately seeking out the death cap variety.
Loading
Mandy said the defence case was that Erin Patterson panicked because she was overwhelmed that four people had become ill because of the food that she'd served to them.
He also maintained his client never feigned any illness and instead panicked.
On Monday the jurors emphatically rejected that version of events with their guilty verdicts.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
16 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The 10 hurdles Erin Patterson needed to jump. She hit every one
In every case, there are five basic questions – who, what, when, where and why. In the mushroom trial, people were familiar with the answers to four. In July 2023, Erin Patterson invited her estranged husband, Simon, her in-laws, Don and Gail, and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson, and her husband, Ian, for lunch at her Leongatha home. Simon declined. She served individual beef Wellingtons, which were poisoned with death cap mushrooms, resulting in three deaths and only one survivor. The question left for the jury was why. It was either an innocent and tragic mistake or a deliberate act of murder. There was no middle ground. For more than 40 years, I have observed that jurors plucked from the community have to deal with the most complex cases. The first thing you notice is how diligent they are – concentrating, taking notes and putting their own lives on hold. The next is how brave they are – often sitting in judgement against seriously dangerous offenders. Despite the marathon legal arguments and the testimony of expert witnesses the Morwell jury needed to use common sense rather than common law to examine 10 key questions. We are told repeatedly that the jury system is the truest form of justice. Then why is it that so much information is kept from them? In many pre-trial discussions, part of the prosecution's case is knocked out before a jury is impanelled rather than allowing the jurors to decide the evidentiary value themselves. In one case I covered, the jury acquitted a man of murdering his wife. The prosecution was that he had hired a hitman, and even though the killer testified that the husband paid him, the accused walked. On verdict, the defence lawyer turned to the prosecutor and said, 'You were robbed.' The defence lawyer was Nicola Gobbo. When I reported on the case, including mentioning the alleged fee paid, a juror contacted me and said, 'You can't even get the amount right.' I then told him I was talking about a second hitman who had been approached and knocked back the contract, a fact the judge decided couldn't be admitted in evidence. 'How dare a jury be guilty of independent thought.' 'Don't tell me that,' the distressed juror said as it dawned on him the husband may well be guilty. I told him he could only make a decision on the facts available. It wasn't his fault. When Jetstar pilot, Greg Lynn, stood trial for the murders of High Country campers Carol Clay and Russell Hill, the jury was told that in the admissible record of interview that Lynn did not lie once. They weren't told that in the 1500 questions and answers that were not played to the jury he lied through his teeth. The jury found him guilty of Clay's murder and not guilty of Hill's. The defence is appealing with one of the grounds being that that option was not given to them during the trial. How dare a jury be guilty of independent thought. One frustrated cop told me detectives are forced to perjure themselves just about every time they testify. 'We take the oath, 'I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' but we are never allowed to tell the whole truth.' Loading The Morwell verdict is not the end of the story but the end of a chapter. The bitterly disappointed defence team will now have to dust themselves off and look for grounds to appeal while preparing a plea submission. They will examine every word of transcript to find grounds to show either the jury lost the plot, were misled about the law in the judge's rulings or were given inadmissible evidence that tainted their verdict. The trouble here is that the very diligent Justice Christopher Beale (a ten-year veteran of the court, who worked as an accomplished defence and prosecution barrister) appeared to be extremely sensitive to Patterson's rights to a fair trial having to navigate a course through the highest profile case on the books. The plea submission is not to argue about guilt or innocence but to persuade the judge to go easy on their client. In some cases, the defence raises issues of mitigation. Their client committed the crime because they were provoked, had a bad childhood, were addicted to drugs or got out of bed on the wrong side. But Patterson's team can't use that tactic because she maintains her innocence. They will say she is a loving mother, who will be deprived of her children while in jail, has no criminal record, her notorious reputation will make her a target for fellow inmates and that she is a sad and lonely person, shunned by many and doomed to a miserable existence until the day she dies. Loading There will also be victim impact statements. Three decent and loved members of the Gippsland community have died and a fourth just survived. As the head of the homicide squad, Detective Inspector Dean Thomas said, 'I ask that we acknowledge those people and don't forget them.' Erin Patterson is 50. She can expect to be sentenced to a maximum of life imprisonment. The only issue is the minimum term that may well sit somewhere between 35 and 40 years. Patterson is an enthusiastic true-crime fan. Now she is the subject of books, podcasts, dramas and documentaries. Stories about her have appeared in the London Times, New York Times, and French newspapers. Eventually, as time moves on, she will become the answer to a question on crime trivia nights – what's the name of the lady from the mushroom case?
The Age
16 hours ago
- The Age
The 10 hurdles Erin Patterson needed to jump. She hit every one
In every case, there are five basic questions – who, what, when, where and why. In the mushroom trial, people were familiar with the answers to four. In July 2023, Erin Patterson invited her estranged husband, Simon, her in-laws, Don and Gail, and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson, and her husband, Ian, for lunch at her Leongatha home. Simon declined. She served individual beef Wellingtons, which were poisoned with death cap mushrooms, resulting in three deaths and only one survivor. The question left for the jury was why. It was either an innocent and tragic mistake or a deliberate act of murder. There was no middle ground. For more than 40 years, I have observed that jurors plucked from the community have to deal with the most complex cases. The first thing you notice is how diligent they are – concentrating, taking notes and putting their own lives on hold. The next is how brave they are – often sitting in judgement against seriously dangerous offenders. Despite the marathon legal arguments and the testimony of expert witnesses the Morwell jury needed to use common sense rather than common law to examine 10 key questions. We are told repeatedly that the jury system is the truest form of justice. Then why is it that so much information is kept from them? In many pre-trial discussions, part of the prosecution's case is knocked out before a jury is impanelled rather than allowing the jurors to decide the evidentiary value themselves. In one case I covered, the jury acquitted a man of murdering his wife. The prosecution was that he had hired a hitman, and even though the killer testified that the husband paid him, the accused walked. On verdict, the defence lawyer turned to the prosecutor and said, 'You were robbed.' The defence lawyer was Nicola Gobbo. When I reported on the case, including mentioning the alleged fee paid, a juror contacted me and said, 'You can't even get the amount right.' I then told him I was talking about a second hitman who had been approached and knocked back the contract, a fact the judge decided couldn't be admitted in evidence. 'How dare a jury be guilty of independent thought.' 'Don't tell me that,' the distressed juror said as it dawned on him the husband may well be guilty. I told him he could only make a decision on the facts available. It wasn't his fault. When Jetstar pilot, Greg Lynn, stood trial for the murders of High Country campers Carol Clay and Russell Hill, the jury was told that in the admissible record of interview that Lynn did not lie once. They weren't told that in the 1500 questions and answers that were not played to the jury he lied through his teeth. The jury found him guilty of Clay's murder and not guilty of Hill's. The defence is appealing with one of the grounds being that that option was not given to them during the trial. How dare a jury be guilty of independent thought. One frustrated cop told me detectives are forced to perjure themselves just about every time they testify. 'We take the oath, 'I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' but we are never allowed to tell the whole truth.' Loading The Morwell verdict is not the end of the story but the end of a chapter. The bitterly disappointed defence team will now have to dust themselves off and look for grounds to appeal while preparing a plea submission. They will examine every word of transcript to find grounds to show either the jury lost the plot, were misled about the law in the judge's rulings or were given inadmissible evidence that tainted their verdict. The trouble here is that the very diligent Justice Christopher Beale (a ten-year veteran of the court, who worked as an accomplished defence and prosecution barrister) appeared to be extremely sensitive to Patterson's rights to a fair trial having to navigate a course through the highest profile case on the books. The plea submission is not to argue about guilt or innocence but to persuade the judge to go easy on their client. In some cases, the defence raises issues of mitigation. Their client committed the crime because they were provoked, had a bad childhood, were addicted to drugs or got out of bed on the wrong side. But Patterson's team can't use that tactic because she maintains her innocence. They will say she is a loving mother, who will be deprived of her children while in jail, has no criminal record, her notorious reputation will make her a target for fellow inmates and that she is a sad and lonely person, shunned by many and doomed to a miserable existence until the day she dies. Loading There will also be victim impact statements. Three decent and loved members of the Gippsland community have died and a fourth just survived. As the head of the homicide squad, Detective Inspector Dean Thomas said, 'I ask that we acknowledge those people and don't forget them.' Erin Patterson is 50. She can expect to be sentenced to a maximum of life imprisonment. The only issue is the minimum term that may well sit somewhere between 35 and 40 years. Patterson is an enthusiastic true-crime fan. Now she is the subject of books, podcasts, dramas and documentaries. Stories about her have appeared in the London Times, New York Times, and French newspapers. Eventually, as time moves on, she will become the answer to a question on crime trivia nights – what's the name of the lady from the mushroom case?
Sydney Morning Herald
a day ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
One word on a tax return set off lethal chain of events
It was late October or November in 2022, he recalled, when his estranged wife pulled him aside for a chat. She sat in the car with Simon and said she had discovered that his tax return for the previous financial year noted they were separated. Loading 'Before that, we hadn't gotten the government involved in the fact we were separated at all before,' Simon said. 'She said that it mattered, I think, for the family tax benefit, something of that nature. And so, she would be obliged to claim child support off of me, which had never happened before.' Simon told the court his tax status was changed as a result of a miscommunication between him and his accountant. He said Erin rejected his efforts to revert it. From then on, Simon said, communication became more functional and less 'chatty'. 'That was probably the first thing that made me feel that there was a substantial change in our relationship, that before that, our habit for years was to message each other a lot, in a chatty way, and the chatty nature of it pretty much stopped,' he said. He said that a few weeks later, Erin applied for child support. She was also keen for him to sign a form stipulating that they would each pay half of the children's school fees. However, Simon told Erin he had been advised by government staff not to do so, as the school fees would be covered in the child support payments. 'I'm sure she was very upset about that,' Simon told the jury. About seven months later, Simon Patterson's parents and aunt and uncle lay critically unwell in the Austin Hospital from death cap mushroom poisoning. The prosecution case was the killer had lured the family to lunch at her home under the guise of telling them she had cancer. Medical records would later show this was never the case. It wouldn't be until November 2023, four months after the lunch, that police would make an arrest. Erin Patterson was charged with three counts of murder and one of attempted murder. Other charges – three counts of attempted murder relating to estranged husband Simon Patterson – were dropped on the eve of the high-profile murder trial. During the trial, the jury heard from more than 50 witnesses. They included the surviving lunch guest Ian Wilkinson, Simon Patterson, other Wilkinson and Patterson family members, medical witnesses and online friends of Erin Patterson. The jury also heard from mushroom and toxin experts, the manager of a local tip where Erin's dehydrator – laden with death cap toxins – was found dumped, alongside a phone tower expert, health officers and homicide squad detectives. Loading During the trial, the jury heard Erin Patterson had lied about having cancer to lure family members to her home for lunch on July 29, 2023, and about getting rid of the black Sunbeam food dehydrator in the e-waste section of the tip in the aftermath of the fatal meal. When the lunch guests arrived, the jury heard, Erin served beef Wellington on different coloured plates to her own to deliberately poison them. 'I noticed Erin had put her food on a different plate to us. Her plate had colour on it, I wondered why that was,' Heather Wilkinson told family before she died. Hours after the lunch, all four guests fell ill. Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson died at the Austin Hospital on August 4 and 5, while Ian Wilkinson survived after a lengthy stay in hospital. Erin Patterson had gone to Leongatha hospital complaining of not feeling well, but left after telling staff she was not prepared to stay, sparking a triple-0 call to police to try to find the now 50-year-old. She later returned to hospital and was found to be suffering from gastro-like symptoms but no significant illnesses. The jury also heard that in the months leading up to the lunch, Erin posted messages in a Facebook chat group about dehydrating mushrooms, including sharing in the chat that she had bought a food dehydrator. She posted photos of the new appliance on her kitchen bench. By this point, Erin Patterson's ill will towards her estranged husband was extending to her in-laws. She also told her online friends, using an account name of Erin Erin Erin, that Simon Patterson was a 'deadbeat' father, and Don and Gail Patterson were 'a lost cause' the year before the lunch. She complained that Simon Patterson had refused to talk about his side of a shared issue, after which his father, Don, had said he was unable to adjudicate between the pair, instead urging them to get together and pray. 'This family I swear to f---ing god,' the post read. 'I said to him about 50 times yesterday that I didn't want them to adjudicate. Nobody bloody listens to me, at least I know they're a lost cause.' As the conversation continued, the court heard, more posts were made including some discussing difficulties in obtaining child support, and suggestions from Simon's family that she withdraw her claim. Loading In one message, Erin wondered if Simon Patterson had any capacity for self-reflection, and said his refusal to talk about personal issues appeared to be a 'learned behaviour' from his parents to not 'talk about this shit'. She complained he 'needs to be accountable' for his decision-making that was hurting their children. 'I'm sick of this shit I want nothing to do with them,' the post read. 'F--- them.' 'I don't need anything from these people.' 'Simon wants to walk away from his responsibilities. If he wants them to go to a private Christian school, he can help pay for it. 'His mum was horrified that I had claimed child support. Why isn't she horrified that her son is such a deadbeat that I had no choice but to claim?' Phone tower data aired in court suggested Erin Patterson was in the Loch and Outtrim areas, in South Gippsland, soon after posts were made on a citizen scientist website about sightings of death cap mushrooms growing in the wild. After three of the lunch guests died, police searched her home, discovering one of her phones was factory-reset a number of times over a 48-hour period, including remotely the day after the police raid. Another phone was never found. Erin's defence team, led by Colin Mandy, SC, maintained the poisoning was nothing more than 'a tragedy and a terrible accident'. Loading On day one of the trial, he said his client admitted, for the first time, that she did forage mushrooms but denied ever deliberately seeking out the death cap variety. Mandy said the defence case was that Erin Patterson panicked because she was overwhelmed that four people had become ill because of the food that she'd served to them. He also maintained his client never feigned any illness and instead panicked.
