Latest news with #NanetteRogers
Reuters
07-07-2025
- Reuters
Mushroom murderer Erin Patterson's decision to testify fails to convince jury
MORWELL, Australia, July 7 (Reuters) - A month into the trial of the Australian woman accused of murdering three of her estranged husband's elderly relatives with poisonous mushrooms, her barrister Colin Mandy stood and delivered one of the case's pivotal moments. 'The defence will call Erin Patterson,' Mandy told the court. Patterson, who was convicted on Monday, opens new tab of three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, was the only witness for her defence in a 10-week trial that gripped Australia. She told the court she had a loving relationship with the three people who died, including her mother and father-in-law, saying they were all she had in a frequently troubled life. In fact, she murdered three of them and attempted to kill a fourth by slipping lethal death cap mushrooms into individual Beef Wellingtons she served at a July 2023 lunch, a jury found. An alleged murderer testifying as a witness in their own defence is a rare strategy and normally a last resort, said Nicholas Papas, a veteran criminal barrister based in Melbourne who frequently acts in murder trials. 'The risk is that when you call your client, then suddenly people start focusing on your client,' he said. Patterson's decision also opened her up to five days of tense cross-examination by prosecutor Nanette Rogers, with whom she repeatedly clashed over minor details. Patterson's version of events, opens new tab – that she had included the deadly mushrooms by accident and she had not died herself after eating the tainted meal due to an eating disorder – was rejected by the jury as unreliable. 'You're actually putting (the case) in the hands of your client, and lawyers don't tend to want to necessarily do that,' Papas said. 'We like to control the process if we can.' TROUBLED LIFE Patterson, 50, grew up Melbourne, the daughter of an academic. She qualified as an air traffic controller and had been accepted to study nursing at the time of her arrest, after a life marred by a tempestuous marriage and problems with her weight and low self-esteem, the court heard. In her own testimony, she hinted at a strained relationship with her now-deceased parents, who were 'in Russia, on a train' on her wedding day in 2007, she told the court. During a 2009 road-trip across Australia with her estranged husband Simon, she left abruptly in one of their many separations, leaving him alone with their son, then only a few months old. She frequently wept as she spoke of her close bond with the Patterson family, including her father-in-law, Don, with whom she shared a love of learning, she said. The judge presiding in the case, Justice Christopher Beale, instructed the jury that Patterson could only be found guilty if they rejected her testimony, which they did unanimously. Patterson initially told police she had bought the mushrooms used in the meal from a local supermarket, before then saying she had got them from an Asian grocer in Melbourne. A 2023 search of Asian grocers in the city found no evidence death cap mushrooms had been sold. During the trial, Patterson said she may have foraged for the mushrooms but did not ultimately know where they had come from. She had also lied about a cancer diagnosis to her guests because she was embarrassed to admit she was actually having gastric band surgery, Patterson said in evidence. She told the court she wanted her relatives' advice and assistance with looking after her two children while she had the surgery, and named a clinic in Melbourne that was later found never to have offered the procedure. From the wood-panelled dock at the back of Court 4 at the Latrobe Valley Magistrates Court in Morwell, where Patterson sat for most of the trial, she stared intently at the jury as they entered and exited the courtroom. Flanked by two custody officers, she appeared alert but relaxed during the proceedings, occasionally donning a pair of black-rimmed spectacles to study evidence on a court-issued tablet. The prosecution offered no motive for Patterson's decision to murder her in-laws. Under Australian law, it did not have to prove one to secure a conviction. Patterson will be sentenced at a later date, at a hearing that will consider the reasons for her offending. For now, the only person who truly knows why she poisoned the lunch is Erin Patterson herself.
The Independent
07-07-2025
- The Independent
An unclear motive and a media frenzy: The mushroom murder trial, explained
After seven weeks of evidence, six days of summing up, and six-and-a-half days of jury deliberation in the Victorian Supreme Court sitting in Morwell, Victoria, the verdict is finally in. Erin Patterson murdered her estranged husband's parents, Don and Gail Patterson, along with Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson. She was also found guilty of attempting to murder Heather's husband Ian: the only guest to survive the beef wellington lunch served in July 2023 at her home in Leongatha. In delivering the guilty verdict, the jury was satisfied Erin Patterson had complete control over the ingredients that went into the meal portions served to her guests – portions that included death cap mushrooms. There would not be too many observers surprised with the outcome, given the strength of the prosecution case presented by Nanette Rogers. There were no procedural surprises in this case. The prosecution presented its case, followed by the defence and ultimately, a jury verdict. But this much-publicised case raises a number of legal issues that contributed to the length of the trial and its outcome. Let's unpack them. Motive doesn't matter The first is the question of motive. Defence counsel Colin Mandy made much of his assertion that there was no apparent reason for the accused to kill her guests. It is, however, a mistake to think there needs to be a motive in order to convict. In cases of murder and attempted murder, all that's required is for a jury to find a 'culpable state of mind'. In the case of the three deceased, the jury needed to be satisfied, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there was an intention to kill, or to do serious bodily harm. In other words, it did not matter why Patterson killed her victims, only that she intended to do so, or to inflict serious harm with death resulting. In the case of the surviving guest, the jury was satisfied that there had been an intention to kill. Establishing a motive is a useful tool that prosecution counsel may deploy to add fuel to the fire in the courtroom, but it was not necessary for Rogers to locate a motive in order for the jury to reach guilty verdicts. Circumstantial, but substantial Another oft-repeated fallacy is that guilty verdicts require more than 'mere' circumstantial evidence. In fact, most evidence in criminal cases is circumstantial, because direct evidence (such as an eyewitness or a visual or voice recording) is usually unavailable. The circumstantial evidence in this case, according to the prosecution, included the attempted hiding of a tainted dehydrator, the doubt cast over whether an Asian grocer was the source of the poisonous mushrooms, and the fact that Erin Patterson's meal portion was free of the deadly ingredient. Placed together, this circumstantial evidence was strong enough for the 12 men and women to return guilty verdicts. Indeed, taking into consideration the strength of this evidence, it is perhaps surprising that Patterson did not plead guilty to murder, given the discount on sentence she may have received. She chose to take her chances with a jury. Ultimately, she failed. Days of summing up Another interesting aspect of the case is that the summing up by the two lead barristers, and then the judge, took more than six days. A generation ago, these addresses would have typically taken considerably less time than that. The change, which has occurred slowly over the last two decades, has been necessitated by appeal judgements following guilty verdicts in long trials. In some of these, defence counsel successfully argued the defence case was not sufficiently covered in the judge's summing up. That being the case, the prosecution summary now needs to preempt every aspect of the defence case, knowing the defence counsel summary that follows will attend to every last point that the prosecution has raised. Then the judge needs to give chapter and verse (in this case, over four days) in relation to everything again, paying particular attention to the defence case. The process is now laborious and time-consuming. One might pity the jurors hearing everything over and over again. Indeed, we believe there is little evidence this very expensive change has raised the quality of verdicts. But one cannot doubt the way that the criminal process now goes to extraordinary lengths to ensure that an accused receives a fair trial. We will never know why the jury took over six days to reach its verdict (in Australia they are duty bound not to reveal anything of their deliberations), but it does indicate the seriousness with which they treat their role in this process. The trust that is placed in the hands of jurors, even with the high profile media frenzy that this case elicited, remains firm. On the other hand, with such drawn-out procedures, it's perhaps not surprising that court backlogs continue to grow, and ever-increasing numbers of people (currently 42 per cent of the Australian prison population) are sitting in prison on remand, awaiting trial. What now? The maximum sentence for murder in Victoria is life imprisonment. This does not necessarily mean life in prison, for the minimum non-parole period is 30 years, unless a court considers it not in the interests of justice to set such a term. Erin Patterson will likely receive a life sentence, with a non-parole period that is in keeping with the number of victims. The head sentence and non-parole period will be set by Justice Christopher Beale after sentencing submissions in the days and weeks to come. The so-called 'mushroom case' still has another chapter to run. Rick Sarre is an Emeritus Professor in Law and Criminal Justice at the University of South Australia Ben Livings is an Associate Professor in Criminal Law and Evidence at the University of South Australia
Daily Mail
25-06-2025
- Daily Mail
Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates: Judge wraps up his final instructions to the jury as the marathon trial enters its final days
Podcast All episodes Play on Apple Spotify 22:21 Jury told about Patterson's 'alleged incriminating conduct' Towards the end of Wednesday's proceedings, Justice Beale spoke to the jury about the topic of Patterson's 'alleged incriminating conduct'. 'The prosecution (Crown prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers SC pictured) argued Patterson knew she was guilty and did what she did to conceal her guilt,' Justice Beale said. However, Justice Beale told the jury the defence has reasons for Patterson's behaviour. 'The defence claimed there were innocent explanations for that behaviour,' he added. Justice Beale listed some of that alleged 'incriminating' conduct: 1. She lied about being unwell after the lunch 2. Patterson lied about the Asian grocer mushrooms 3. She refused treatment at hospital and left against medical advice 4. She had reluctance to accept treatment the second time at hospital 5. Patterson was reluctant to get kids treated on July 31 6. Why would she have fed the kids leftovers? 7. She reset Phone B multiple times on August 2 8. She dumped the dehydrator 9. On August 5, she provided Phone B instead of Phone A 10. Patterson lied to cops about her phone number 11. She lied about foraging 12. She lied about owning a dehydrator Justice Beale told the jury about the defence and prosecution's reason why Patterson left hopsital the first time early on July 31. He alerted the jury that thos morning he will commence talking about the topic of the Asian store mushrooms claim. The trial will resume at 10.30am. 22:20 Phone B factory reset multiple times The jury was again taken through the phone data contained within the Samsung A23 Patterson (legal team pictured) handed to police after they searched her home on August 5. The device, known throughout the trial as 'Phone B', was factory reset multiple times including while the device was in a secure storage locker at Homicide Squad HQ in the city. Justice Beale reminded the jury how phones were factory reset multiple times over different days following the lunch. He said Phone B factory reset remotely while it was in the police locker. 'After the phone had been taken into police custody, investigators can and should isolate the device from the network,' Justice Beale said. This can be done by putting the phone on airplane mode, the jury was told. 'Isolating the phone is critical to ensure data remains in its original state,' Justice Beale added. 22:19 Patterson 'likely' made iNaturalist search Yesterday, Justice Beale took the jury through the evidence of Patterson who said she couldn't remember if she looked up the iNaturalist website. The jury was told Patterson said she couldn't remember making the search but conceded it was likely it was her and not her children who made the search. Patterson, during her evidence, said she couldn't remember if she had an interest in death cap mushrooms on May 28, 2022 but said she wanted to know if death caps grew in South Gippsland. 'I wanted to know if death cap mushrooms grew in South Gippsland, and I found out that they didn't,' Justice Beale said Patterson previously told the jury. The jury was reminded the iNaturalist May 28 search was for a death cap sighting at Bricker Reserve in Moorabbin. Patterson judge to continue his address to the jury Justice Christopher Beale commenced his address to the jury - or 'charge' - on Tuesday after giving jurors a four-day weekend to prepare for the closing stage of the marathon Erin Patterson murder trial. Justice Beale indicated that his address will likely last until sometime today. Patterson, 50, is accused of murdering her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson (both pictured), 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.
ABC News
20-06-2025
- ABC News
Erin Patterson's mushroom murder trial jury soon to put the puzzle pieces together
For seven weeks, jigsaw pieces have been shaken out before the jury in Erin Patterson's triple-murder trial. Dozens of witnesses were called and exhibits ranged from photos allegedly showing death cap mushrooms being dehydrated in the lead-up to the murders, to reams of data extracted from seized electronic devices. The trial of Erin Patterson, who stands accused of using a poisoned meal to murder three relatives, continues. Look back at how Thursday's hearing unfolded in our live blog. To stay up to date with this story, subscribe to ABC News. In the trial's eighth week, the prosecution and defence used those pieces to assemble and present two contrasting pictures to the jury. The prosecution told the jury the pieces clicked into place to reveal Ms Patterson as a murderer, who had deliberately killed three relatives and attempted to murder a fourth. The lunch she had hosted at her regional Victorian home in 2023 was built on a series of deceptions, the prosecution alleged. The lethal one, lead prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC said, was Ms Patterson's lacing of the beef Wellington meals she served to her relatives. "The sinister deception was to use a nourishing meal as the vehicle to deliver a deadly poison," Dr Rogers told the Supreme Court jury. She invited the jury to consider the pieces of evidence around the "deviations" Ms Patterson made to the original beef Wellington recipe. While the method in the mother of two's cookbook called for a log of meat, individual eye fillets were used. Ms Patterson told the court that was because individual eye fillets were the only ones she could find. The prosecutor suggested that was a lie and the truth was far more calculated. "That choice to make individual portions allowed her complete control over the ingredients in each individual parcel," Dr Rogers said. "It is a control … that she exercised with devastating effect. "It allowed her to give the appearance of sharing in the same meal, whilst ensuring that she did not consume a beef Wellington parcel that she had laced with death cap mushrooms." Ms Patterson's decision to dump her food dehydrator (later found to contain death cap mushroom residue) at the tip and then lie to police about it was behaviour the prosecution said could be slotted together to form incriminating conduct. "If there was nothing incriminating about the dehydrator, why hide it?" Dr Rogers rhetorically asked the jury. "There is only one reasonable explanation: she knew it would incriminate her. "She knew that she had dehydrated death cap mushrooms in that appliance and that she had done deliberately done so, and she knew that keeping it was going to be far too risky." The prosecutor told the jury the evidence laid before them did not point to any "particular motive" for the crime, but this was not a requirement of the murder charges. "The question is not why she did this," she said. "The question you have to determine is: has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did this deliberately?" While not alleging a particular motive, the prosecution placed more pieces of trial evidence before the jury to fill out its puzzle. Facebook messages with friends showed Ms Patterson's animosity towards her Patterson in-laws and mockery of their deeply held religious beliefs, Dr Rogers said. "She presented one side while expressing contrary beliefs to others." In concluding her address, the prosecutor told the jury the legal bar for proving murder beyond reasonable doubt had been "well and truly met". When all of the evidence was combined, Dr Rogers suggested the jury would be satisfied the accused had deliberately sought out death caps and served them to her relatives with malicious intent. "One piece on its own or by itself might tell you not very much at all about what the picture is," she said. "But as you start putting more and more pieces together and looking at it as a whole, the picture starts to become clear." She said while jurors may feel the alleged murders were "too horrible, too cold and beyond your comprehension", they needed to remain focused on the evidence. "Don't let your emotional reaction dictate your verdict, one way or the other," Dr Rogers said. When Ms Patterson's defence barrister Colin Mandy SC rose to his feet, he told the jury the absence of an alleged motive meant the prosecution's jigsaw was incomplete. "Without a motive, you're left guessing about the most important element of the offence in this trial and that's intention," Mr Mandy said. He walked through some of the tense communications between the accused and her estranged husband Simon Patterson several months before the lunch. But he said the picture they painted was a fairly ordinary one of two separated people managing the joint care of their young children. "There is nothing unusual about it. In fact, quite the opposite," Mr Mandy said. "It would be in some cases unusual if there wasn't that kind of spat or disagreement or frustration. He accused the prosecution of putting before the jury a series of "ridiculous, convoluted propositions" that were not supported by the evidence. He said Ms Patterson's simpler explanation of a dreadful "accident" was a truthful one that had emerged "unscathed" after days of cross-examination. "Her account remained coherent and consistent, day after day after day, even when challenged, rapid fire, from multiple angles, repeatedly," he said. Under that explanation, a Tupperware container in Ms Patterson's Leongatha pantry contained a mix of dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer and ones she had foraged from the Gippsland region. In that mix, Mr Mandy suggested, were the death cap mushrooms later added to the lunch. "The prosecution says she had them deliberately, the defence says she had them accidentally," he said. He told them Ms Patterson's actions after the lunch were the panic of an innocent woman in the aftermath of a ghastly accident. "Erin got into the witness box and told you, she did those things because she panicked when confronted with the terrible possibility, terrible realisation, that her actions had caused the illnesses of people that she loved," he said. In closing, Mr Mandy told jurors the prosecution had tried to "force the evidence to fit their theory in a way that does not apply to jigsaw puzzle pieces". "Stretching interpretations, ignoring alternative explanations because they don't align perfectly with the narrative," he said. "Missing puzzle pieces in a jigsaw puzzle can make the picture incomplete, but missing evidence is much more significant." He reminded the jury that if they did not accept all of Ms Patterson's evidence as truthful, they needed to set it to the side and consider whether the evidence actually existed to prove murder and attempted murder beyond reasonable doubt. After both sides in a trial that has astounded observers around the world had finished their address, the judge indicated the most important part lay ahead. Justice Christopher Beale will begin delivering his final instructions to the jury on Tuesday, which he said would break down the legal principles at stake in the case. After that, it will fall to the jury to begin piecing the puzzle together themselves.
The Guardian
20-06-2025
- The Guardian
‘Calculated deceptions' and ‘ridiculous' propositions: what the Erin Patterson jury heard in the final week of her triple-murder trial
The prosecution and defence in Erin Patterson's triple-murder trial concluded their closing addresses this week. Jurors are expected to retire next week – week nine of the trial – to consider their verdicts. Before their deliberations, Justice Christopher Beale will instruct the jury. Patterson, 50, faces three charges of murder and one charge of attempted murder relating to a beef wellington lunch she served at her house in Leongatha, in regional Victoria, on 29 July 2023. She has pleaded not guilty to the charges. Here's what the jury heard from each side in their closing remarks. The crown's case is centred on 'four calculated deceptions' it says were made by Patterson. Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC outlined these to jurors on Monday: 1. First, the 'fabricated' cancer claim Patterson used as a pretence for inviting guests to the beef wellington lunch on 29 July 2023. Evidence in the trial from various family members showed the lunch invitation was a 'very unusual occurrence', Rogers said. Patterson 'knew how to tell convincing lies' about cancer 'because she had put in the research', the court heard. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 2. The 'lethal doses' of poison 'secreted' into the beef wellingtons Patterson cooked for her guests. Rogers labelled this 'the critical deception' – that Patterson deliberately sought out death cap mushrooms and added the toxic fungi to the beef wellingtons. Patterson deviated from the recipe she claimed she used, which called for a single dish to be cut into smaller serves, instead making individual beef wellingtons to ensure she would not accidentally consume death cap mushrooms, Rogers said. 3. Patterson attempted to make it seem as if she had also suffered death cap mushroom poisoning from the meal in the days after. The jury should reject the defence's suggestion that Patterson suffered a 'mild' version of death cap mushroom poisoning, Rogers said. She did this to make it appear that she ate exactly the same meal as her guests, the court heard. The totality of the medical evidence showed Patterson did not suffer death cap mushroom poisoning but tried to make it appear as if she did, Rogers said. Sign up to Afternoon Update Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 4. The 'sustained' cover-up Patterson engaged in to conceal the truth. When Patterson realised death cap mushroom poisoning was suspected, she lied and 'acted deceptively' to deflect blame and suspicion about what she had done, the prosecution said. Rogers pointed to Patterson lying about feeding her children leftovers from the meal, with mushrooms scraped off, and lying about all the mushrooms coming from Woolworths and an Asian grocer – lies the defence disputes. The prosecution also highlighted Patterson dumping her Sunbeam dehydrator at a local tip four days after the lunch. 5. Rogers said Patterson also engaged in a fifth deception – giving 'untruthful evidence' to the jury when she testified in her trial. During her eight days in the witness box, Rogers said the accused told a 'carefully constructed narrative to fit with the evidence – almost'. 'There are some inconsistencies that she just cannot account for so she ignores them, says she can't remember those conversations, or says other people are just wrong, even her own children,' Rogers said. 1. Patterson's defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, told the jury the trial boiled down to two simple issues they needed to determine. First, was there a reasonable possibility that death cap mushrooms were put into the lunch accidentally? Second, was there a reasonable possibility that Patterson did not intend to kill or cause serious injury to her guests? 'If either of those is a reasonable possibility, on all of the evidence, then you find her not guilty,' he said. 2. Mandy outlined the top four 'ridiculous' and 'convoluted' propositions of the crown's case. He urged the jury to reject these, the first being that Patterson would commit the alleged offences without a motive. Mandy said a thorough investigation, including the analysis of electronic devices, messages exchanged with her online friends, and evidence from family witnesses, found 18 years' worth of 'anti-motive evidence' – reasons why she would not want to do anything to her guests. 3. Mandy said the prosecution's argument about the 'cancer lie as a ruse' to entice Patterson's lunch guests to her home should also be rejected. He disputed it by pointing to evidence she told none of her guests about it before the lunch and only told them after they ate the beef wellington meal. 4. The prosecution's argument that Patterson believed the lunch guests would take the cancer secret to the grave with them was 'illogical', Mandy said. Patterson had told people about medical issues weeks before the lunch and her estranged husband, Simon, knew about it and did not attend the fateful meal. 'The whole world could have known about it by the time the lunch was over,' Mandy said. 5. Mandy challenged the prosecution's theory that Patterson, knowing her guests would become ill, thought that it would be passed off as a 'strange case of gastro where everyone died, except her'. The defence argued their client's actions in the days after the lunch were reflective of her panicking about being blamed for the deadly lunch.
