Latest news with #beefWellington
News.com.au
18-06-2025
- News.com.au
Erin Patterson trial: Defence expected to conclude final remarks to jury
Lawyers acting for alleged mushroom poisoner Erin Patterson have ridiculed an argument put forward by the prosecution that she also wanted to kill her husband, labelling it 'absurd', the jury has heard. During his closing address to the jury on Wednesday, defence barrister Colin Mandy SC said there was 'no possible prospect' Ms Patterson wanted to kill her husband. His comment came after Dr Rogers suggested the sixth beef Wellington Ms Patterson had prepared was 'clearly intended' for her husband Simon Patterson. 'The prosecution case is: had Simon Patterson changed his mind and decided to attend the lunch after all, he, too, would have been served that sixth poisoned beef Wellington,' she said on Monday. Previously the jury was told Ms Patterson had prepared six beef Wellingtons – one more than the number of people present at the lunch. In the witness box the accused woman disputed the sixth was intended for her husband, saying it was just an 'extra one' made because she had the ingredients and the steaks used came in twin packs. Dr Rogers pointed to the accused woman's evidence that if Simon had attended, she would have given him a beef Wellington too, and Ms Patterson's final message to her husband after he told her the night before the lunch he wouldn't come. 'I hope you'll change your mind. Your parents and Heather and Ian are coming at 12.30. I hope to see you there,' the message read. Mr Mandy told the jury it was 'obvious from the tone of the message' his client did want him to come and was trying to guilt him into coming. 'The prosecution says the only reason she wanted him there was because she wanted to kill him as well. And that's, we say, an absurd theory,' he said. 'That would have had the result of removing from the children's lives their father, their grandparents, Simon's aunt and uncle. 'There's no possible prospect that Erin wanted in those circumstances to destroy her whole world, her whole life. Surely it's more likely that her account is true.' Also on Wednesday, Mr Mandy said he expected to conclude his remarks on Thursday morning. The update follows trial judge Justice Christopher Beale advising jurors earlier this week he would wait until Monday to begin his summing up of the case and charge, and that he expected this would take a couple of days. The jury would then be sent out to deliberate. Ms Patterson is facing trial accused of murdering three of her husband's family members, and the attempted murder of a fourth, with a poisoned beef Wellington lunch on July 29, 2023. Simon Patterson's parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and aunt, Heather Wilkinson, died in the week following the lunch while Heather's husband, Ian Wilkinson, survived. Prosecutors allege the 50-year-old deliberately sourced the deadly fungi and included it in the lunch intending to kill or at least seriously injure the four guests. She has pleaded not guilty, with her defence arguing she did not intentionally poison the meal, labelling the case a tragic accident. The trial, now in its eighth week, continues.
Daily Mail
18-06-2025
- Daily Mail
Explosive defence argument revealed about why Erin Patterson got sick before any of her lunch guests - as the prosecution case is picked apart
Erin Patterson 's early onset of illness after serving deadly beef Wellingtons to her lunch guests was brought on by her preparation of the meal, a jury has heard. On Wednesday, Patterson's barrister Colin Mandy, SC continued to outline his client's defence against claims she deliberately served poisoned pastry meals to the relatives of her estranged husband Simon Patterson. Patterson, 50, has pleaded not guilty to the murders of Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson. They died after consuming death cap mushrooms served in beef Wellingtons during lunch at her Leongatha home on July 29, 2023. Only Pastor Ian Wilkinson survived the lunch, in what Crown prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers, SC on Monday suggested had been a big mistake. The jury has previously heard Ms Patterson claimed to have become ill shortly after the fateful lunch while her guests became sick much later, around midnight. 'There's a sensible reason for that, because in the morning, several hours before the guests arrived, she was stirring and tasting the duxelle,' Mr Mandy told the jury. 'She was preparing that part of the meal. She was tasting it and that's why she added the dried mushrooms to it. So at least a few hours before anyone else ate any, she had had some.' The jury has heard prosecutors claim that Patterson was never sick from what she ate at the lunch and had simply pretended to be, so as to cover-up her alleged crime. Dr Rogers told the jury medical tests revealed Patterson had no signs of death cap poisoning, unlike her guests who suffered severe symptoms, including organ failure. She argued that Patterson fabricated symptoms, such as vomiting after eating cake, to appear sick like her guests. 'We suggest that if the accused had truly vomited ... that is a detail she would have shared with medical staff,' Dr Rogers said. 'The fact that she never made any mention of it should cause you to seriously doubt this claim and we suggest, reject ... [this claim] as a lie.' Mr Mandy said Patterson's claim that she vomited after the lunch ought be treated as truthful. The court heard Patterson claimed she had vomited shortly after the lunch ended, around 2.45pm. 'Now if that was a lie, members of the jury, to encourage you to think that the poison had all left her body, she surely would've said to you that it happened as soon as the guests left,' Mr Mandy said. Mr Mandy also suggested Patterson's evidence that she couldn't remember what was in her vomit ought also be treated as the truth. 'She can't be more precise about the contents of her stomach. If she was lying, if she was lying to you, she would say, ''oh look, when I threw up, I could clearly recognise pastry and meat and mushrooms in there. Absolutely categorically it all came up'',' Mr Mandy said. 'If she was lying, that's what she'd say. But instead she says, 'I don't know, it's vomit'. If she was lying, she would've said, ''I threw up immediately and I could clearly see everything''. She didn't say that to you.' Mr Mandy further suggested Patterson did not become as sick as her lunch guests due to a number of significant factors. He said expert evidence suggested people who consumed the same amount of toxin could react in different ways. 'People can eat the same meal, some develop a higher grade, some develop a lower grade of the severity of the illness,' Mr Mandy said. He told the jury there could have been a variation in toxicity from one person's portion to another. And some people have different reactions upon consuming toxins, he said. 'So some people have a better toxic response than others. Yes. So depending on an individual's tolerance to that particular toxin or their physiological response that may be different,' Mr Mandy said. Expert evidence further suggested the age of the individual could also play a factor as could the weight of the person. 'Obviously weight is a factor,' Mr Mandy said. 'As you know, Erin weighed over a hundred kilos. Age is a factor. She's significantly younger than the other guests.' Mr Mandy accused the prosecution of providing 'misleading impressions' to jurors during Dr Rogers' closing address. 'So Dr Rogers yesterday in her closing argument, invited you to think about what you would do in this situation if this was really just a horrible accident,' he said. 'And what the Crown was asking you to do is to engage in an exercise which might be dangerous and seductive, but it's not appropriate because it involves hindsight reasons. 'And hindsight reasoning is dangerous because it distorts how we evaluate decisions and actions that occurred in the past.' Mr Mandy further accused lone lunch guest survivor Ian Wilkinson of providing the jury incorrect evidence when he described Patterson eating her meal off a different coloured plate. 'It has to be the case that Ian Wilkinson is wrong about what he said. It makes no sense logically that you would use that method to deliver up an unpoisoned parcel, but otherwise, on all of the evidence, he's wrong; honestly mistaken,' Mr Mandy said. He also said Mr Wilkinson was wrong about the colour of Patterson's other plates, which he had described as being grey. 'Erin and Simon were far more familiar with the crockery in the house than Ian was, and so we submit to you that you would have to find, on a proper and analytical examination of that evidence, that he wasn't right about those plates. Honestly mistaken,' Mr Mandy said. Mr Mandy also claimed it would have made more sense for Patterson to simply mark the 'safe Wellington' on the pastry rather than serve it on a different coloured plate. We submit to you there is only one logical way of getting around that problem if this was your plan, and that would be to mark the unpoisoned one, it's wrapped in pastry, in some way, so that you can recognise it and differentiate it from the others,' Mr Mandy said. 'Easy to do, pastry, in which case you would not need different coloured plates.' He urged the jury to consider why his client would have 'lured' her lunch guests to lunch with a tale about a false cancer diagnosis if they did not discuss the issue until after they had all eaten the Wellingtons. 'On the Crown case, her object had already been achieved,' he said. 'The only rational conclusion … is the lie about cancer has absolutely nothing to do with the intention to kill, if there was one.'
RNZ News
17-06-2025
- RNZ News
Erin Patterson had no reason to murder in-laws with toxic mushrooms, defence tells jury
By Joseph Dunstan and Mikaela Ortolan The prosecution told the jury Erin Patterson had told "lies upon lies" as part of her cover-up after the lunch. Photo: ABC News Erin Patterson's defence barrister has told the jury in her triple-murder trial that the "devoted" mother had no motive to deprive her children of their "wonderful" grandparents. Patterson, 50, has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and one of attempted murder over a beef Wellington lunch she hosted at her regional Victorian home in 2023. On Monday, prosecutors told the jury Patterson had engaged in four substantial deceptions as part of the alleged murder plot. Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC said these were a lie to the guests about cancer, the "secretion" of death cap mushrooms in a "nourishing meal" of individually parcelled beef Wellingtons, feigned illness after the lunch and a sustained cover-up as guests fell critically ill. On Tuesday morning, Dr Rogers wrapped up her closing address by telling the jury a fifth deception had been played upon it, when the accused spun a "carefully constructed narrative" in court in a bid to fit the evidence against her. She said "perhaps the starkest" of these was Patterson's evidence about plans to undergo gastric-bypass surgery a few months after the lunch. During her evidence, Patterson told the court she had booked an appointment for gastric-bypass surgery at a clinic in Melbourne and had lied to relatives about potential cancer treatment as a cover story. When she was told in cross-examination that the clinic did not offer gastric-band surgery, Patterson said she must have been "mistaken" and she had also been considering liposuction. "There's no way that the accused's earlier evidence can be twisted to fit that new claim," Dr Rogers told the jury. The prosecution alleged several other lies were told by Patterson in the period surrounding the lunch, including admitted lies to police about owning a food dehydrator and foraging for mushrooms. "Erin Patterson told so many lies it's hard to keep up with them," Dr Rogers said. "She's told lies upon lies because she knew the truth would implicate her." Dr Rogers told the jury Patterson was "not a credible witness" and significant parts of the defence case that rested solely on her evidence should be closely scrutinised. She also told the jury it should disregard any claim from the defence that Patterson's actions after the lunch were the result of "innocent panic" rather than a sustained cover-up. The prosecutor said any parent who believed their children may have consumed death cap mushrooms would "move mountains" to get them to hospital, in contrast to Patterson's initial reluctance to take her children out of school. Dr Rogers also told the jury that Patterson's venting to Facebook friends about her in-laws showed that the accused was "leading a duplicitous life when it came to the Pattersons". "She presented one side, while expressing contrary beliefs to others," Dr Rogers said. In closing her address, Dr Rogers told jurors they should make their deliberations based on the facts before them. "You may not want to believe that anyone could be capable of doing what the accused has done," she said, describing the alleged actions as "horrible", "cold" and "beyond comprehension". "But look at the evidence, don't let your emotional reaction dictate your verdict one way or the other." In his closing address, defence barrister Colin Mandy SC told the jury the prosecution had been "cherry picking" evidence that suited their case, while "disregarding inconvenient truths" that challenged it. He told the jury if they believed there was a reasonable possibility that death cap mushrooms were added to the meal accidentally and a reasonable possibility that Patterson did not intend to kill or cause serious injury to her guests, then they should find her not guilty. The lawyer said the prosecution case lacked a motive, which would usually be "fundamental" to proving the required element in the charges of intent to kill or seriously injure. Mandy told the jury there had been evidence during the trial that demonstrated a warm relationship existed between his client and her in-laws. "Erin Patterson had a motive to keep these people in her world so that they could keep supporting her and her children," he said. "And there's absolutely no doubt that Don and Gail had a great relationship with [their grandchildren] … absolutely no doubt that Erin was devoted to her children. "Why would she take wonderful, active, loving grandparents away from her own children?" Mandy told the jury it should regard a period of tension that arose between Erin and Simon Patterson over financial matters as a "brief spat" about child support which was "resolved amicably" before too long. Mandy said there was no proof to support the idea that this tension could have formed a reason for Patterson murdering her husband's parents and aunt and uncle. "It's an unsatisfactory piece of evidence," he said. Mandy told the jury an "intelligent person carefully planning a murder" in the way alleged by the prosecution would know that they and the meal they had prepared would come "under suspicion" and that they would be in the "spotlight". He said Patterson's actions after the lunch - including disposing of the dehydrator at a tip and paying with her own bank card - were born out of panic and not guilt. "If you're planning a murder, what's the one thing you really should plan to dispose of? That's the murder weapon," Mandy said. He suggested to the jury that if the deadly meal had been premeditated, Patterson "would've disposed of [the dehydrator] months before and never told anyone she had one". "It speaks volumes about her state of mind," he said. "It can only have been panic, not because she was guilty, but because that's what people might think." Mandy is expected to continue delivering his closing address for the defence on Wednesday. - ABC
RNZ News
11-06-2025
- RNZ News
Accused murderer Erin Patterson fed children beef Wellington lunch leftovers despite illness, court told
By Joseph Dunstan and Judd Boaz for ABC News Erin Patterson in the courtroom, as drawn by a court artist. Photo: ABC News: Anita Lester Erin Patterson has rejected a suggestion from prosecutors that she lied about feeding her children leftover meat from a deadly beef Wellington lunch, while giving evidence for a seventh day in her triple-murder trial. The 50-year-old has pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and attempted murder after three relatives - her parents-in-law Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson - died from death cap mushroom poisoning following a lunch at her house on 29 July, 2023. Another relative, Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson, fell seriously ill but survived. On Wednesday, Patterson told a Supreme Court jury in Morwell she fed her children leftovers from the beef Wellington lunch the following night, but had scraped the mushroom paste off the meat. Previously in the trial, Patterson told the court she had experienced nausea and diarrhoea on Saturday and Sunday after eating the beef Wellington lunch. Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC put to Patterson that she was effectively saying that she had fed her children leftovers from Saturday's lunch on Sunday even though she had been experiencing diarrhoea in the aftermath of the lunch. "It was the same lunch, yes," Patterson said. Patterson also confirmed that she knew her in-laws had fallen ill following the lunch and before she served the beef Wellington leftovers to her children. "Why did you proceed to feed the same meal to your children when you knew, or suspected, that the meal that you'd served had made them ill?" Rogers asked. "I didn't know or suspect that," Patterson responded. Patterson agreed that on the Monday after the lunch, she had initially asked the hospital if it was "really necessary" to bring her children to hospital given they had no symptoms and she did not think they had eaten any leftover mushrooms. Rogers put to her that it was not credible that "if you thought, genuinely, that your children had eaten a potentially fatal poison … you'd be worried or stressed about pulling them out of school". "The issue was mushrooms and they had not eaten the mushrooms," Patterson responded. "I suggest that you would have wanted them to have immediate medical attention, notwithstanding on your claim that they hadn't eaten the mushrooms," Rogers said. "I wanted to understand the concern and the risk to them," Patterson said. The prosecutor suggested that Patterson was "initially reluctant" to have her children assessed because she knew they had not eaten leftovers from the contaminated lunch and their lives were not at risk. "Incorrect," Patterson said. Earlier, Patterson maintained she had bought dried mushrooms which she believed ended up in the deadly lunch from an Asian grocer in Melbourne's south-east. The prosecution has called that claim a "deliberate lie" and accused Patterson of coming up with the story the Monday after the lunch, when she was asked by doctors about the ingredients in the meal. Patterson said that was incorrect. The court previously heard Patterson told a health official she thought the mushrooms had smelled funny after purchasing them and she had initially avoided using them. Rogers put to Patterson that "if they were overpowering, surely you would have been worried" about putting them in the beef Wellington. "No, I didn't think that. I thought it was the perfect dish for them," Patterson responded. Patterson said she had dried the mushrooms further in her dehydrator before storing them for several months. The prosecution went into detail about conversations Patterson had with health official Sally Ann Atkinson, who was investigating the death cap poisonings following the lunch. The court has heard Patterson told Atkinson that she believed she had bought dried mushrooms at an Asian grocer in the Oakleigh area and that they had been packaged with a handwritten label. Previously in the trial, a police interview was aired to the court where Patterson told authorities she had been "very, very helpful" to the health department. On Wednesday, the prosecution took aim at this assertion in court. "You sent [the health department] on a wild goose chase trying to locate this Asian grocer … you did not want to be pressed for details about the Asian grocery store," Rogers said. "You lied about the source of the death cap mushrooms because you knew you were guilty of deliberately poisoning your four [relatives]." Patterson rejected the assertions. Earlier in the trial, the court heard from Troy Schonknecht, an environmental health officer with the City of Monash Council, who searched for an Asian grocer alleged to have sold deadly mushrooms. Schonknecht investigated more than a dozen Asian grocers, but found only one store selling mushrooms with their own packaging. He was unable to find death cap mushrooms fitting the direct description given by Patterson. Patterson last week told the court she now believed foraged mushrooms had been included in the meal alongside the mushrooms she said she bought from an Asian grocer. The prosecution also raised the testimony of telecommunications expert Matthew Sorrel, who provided context for mobile phone tower data recorded on 22 May, 2023. The prosecutor put to Patterson that mobile data suggested she went to the Loch township on that morning. "It looks like I did do that, yes," Patterson said. But she disagreed that she went to Loch with the purpose of finding death cap mushrooms at the location previously uploaded to the iNaturalist site. On the same day, expert analysis of mobile phone data suggested Patterson's phone was in the Outtrim area just before midday. Rogers suggested she went to Neilson Street, where fungi expert Tom May had flagged death cap mushrooms in an iNaturalist pin published the day before. But Patterson said she had no recollection of travelling to Outtrim as a destination, but it was possible she passed through. "That is possible because you can pass through Outtrim on the way to Wonthaggi or Phillip Island, I think it is," she said. The trial continues. - ABC
ABC News
11-06-2025
- ABC News
Erin Patterson continues giving evidence on mushrooms in Supreme Court murder trial
Erin Patterson has rejected a suggestion from prosecutors that she lied about feeding her children leftover meat from a deadly beef Wellington lunch, while giving evidence for a seventh day in her triple-murder trial. The 50-year-old has pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and attempted murder after three relatives — her parents-in-law Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson — died from death cap mushroom poisoning following a lunch at her house on July 29, 2023. Another relative, Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson, fell seriously ill but survived. The trial of Erin Patterson, who stands accused of using a poisoned meal to murder three relatives, continues. Follow along with Wednesday's hearing in our live blog. To stay up to date with this story, subscribe to ABC News. On Wednesday, Ms Patterson told a Supreme Court jury in Morwell she fed her children leftovers from the deadly lunch the following night, but had scraped the mushroom paste off the meat. Previously in the trial, Ms Patterson told the court she had experienced nausea and diarrhoea on Saturday and Sunday after eating the beef Wellington lunch. Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC put it to Ms Patterson that she was effectively saying that she fed her children leftovers from Saturday's lunch on Sunday even though she had been experiencing diarrhoea in the aftermath of the lunch. "It was the same lunch, yes," Ms Patterson said. Ms Patterson also confirmed that she knew her in-laws had fallen ill following the lunch and before she served the beef Wellington leftovers to her children. "Why did you proceed to feed the same meal to your children when you knew, or suspected, that the meal that you'd served had made them ill?" Dr Rogers asked. "I didn't know or suspect that," Ms Patterson responded. Ms Patterson agreed that on the Monday after the lunch, she initially asked the hospital if it was "really necessary" to bring her children to hospital given they had no symptoms and she did not think they'd eaten any leftover mushrooms. Dr Rogers put to her that it was not credible that "if you thought, genuinely, that your children had eaten a potentially fatal poison … you'd be worried or stressed about pulling them out of school". "The issue was mushrooms and they had not eaten the mushrooms," Ms Patterson responded. "I suggest that you would have wanted them to have immediate medical attention, notwithstanding on your claim that they hadn't eaten the mushrooms," Dr Rogers said. "I wanted to understand the concern and the risk to them," Ms Patterson said. The prosecutor suggested that Ms Patterson was "initially reluctant" to have her children assessed because she knew they had not eaten leftovers from the contaminated lunch and their lives were not at risk. "Incorrect," Ms Patterson said. Earlier, Ms Patterson maintained she bought dried mushrooms which she believed ended up in the deadly lunch from an Asian grocer in Melbourne's south-east. The prosecution has called that claim a "deliberate lie" and accused Ms Patterson of coming up with the story the Monday after the lunch, when she was asked by doctors about the ingredients in the meal. Ms Patterson said that was incorrect. The court previously heard Ms Patterson told a health official she thought the mushrooms had smelled funny after purchasing them and she had initially avoided using them. Dr Rogers put to Ms Patterson that "if they were overpowering, surely you would have been worried" about putting them in the beef Wellington. "No, I didn't think that. I thought it was the perfect dish for them," Ms Patterson responded. Ms Patterson said she had dried the mushrooms further in her dehydrator before storing them for several months. The prosecution went into detail about conversations Ms Patterson had with health official Sally Ann Atkinson, who was investigating the death cap poisonings following the lunch. The court has heard Ms Patterson told Ms Atkinson that she believed she had bought dried mushrooms at an Asian grocer in the Oakleigh area and that they had been packaged with a handwritten label. Previously in the trial, a police interview was aired to the court where Ms Patterson told authorities she had been "very, very helpful" to the health department. On Wednesday, the prosecution took aim at this assertion in court. "You sent [the health department] on a wild goose chase trying to locate this Asian grocer … you did not want to be pressed for details about the Asian grocery store," Dr Rogers said. "You lied about the source of the death cap mushrooms because you knew you were guilty of deliberately poisoning your four [relatives]." Ms Patterson rejected the assertions. Earlier in the trial, the court heard from Troy Schonknecht, an environmental health officer with the City of Monash Council, who searched for an Asian grocer alleged to have sold deadly mushrooms. Mr Schonknecht investigated more than a dozen Asian grocers, but found only one store selling mushrooms with their own packaging. He was unable to find death cap mushrooms fitting the direct description given by Ms Patterson. Ms Patterson last week told the court she now believed foraged mushrooms had been included in the meal alongside the mushrooms she said she bought from an Asian grocer. The prosecution also raised the testimony of telecommunications expert Matthew Sorrel, who provided context for mobile phone tower data recorded on May 22, 2023. The prosecutor put to Ms Patterson that mobile data suggested she went to the Loch township on that morning. "It looks like I did do that, yes," Ms Patterson said. But she disagreed that she went to Loch with the purpose of finding death cap mushrooms at the location previously uploaded to the iNaturalist site. On the same day, expert analysis of mobile phone data suggested Ms Patterson's phone was in the Outtrim area just before midday. Dr Rogers suggested she went to Neilson Street, where fungi expert Tom May had flagged death cap mushrooms in an iNaturalist pin published the day before. But Ms Patterson said she had no recollection of travelling to Outtrim as a destination, but it was possible she passed through. "That is possible because you can pass through Outtrim on the way to Wonthaggi or Phillip Island, I think it is," she said. The trial continues.
