One of the most sensational murder cases of recent years in Australia has reached its conclusion: Erin Patterson is a triple-murderer who poisoned her elderly relatives with death cap mushrooms. Patterson has been convicted of all three counts of murder, and one of attempted murder.
Jurors found that Patterson deliberately laced beef Wellingtons with death cap mushrooms she had foraged in the area around her home in Leongatha. As a result, she killed her in-laws, Donald Patterson and Gail Patterson and Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson. Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson, barely survived, after spending months in hospital.
The now-convicted triple-murderer will most likely spend much of, if not all, the rest of her life in prison.
Patterson will be sentenced by judge Christopher Beale at a later date.
Patterson, wearing her trademark paisley shirt and sitting at the back of the court in the dock, remained unemotional when found guilty […]
Patterson’s friend, Ally Rose, who has been present in court for much of the trial, told the waiting media pack she was “saddened” by the verdict, but “it is what it is”.
She said she would visit her friend in prison, but did not answer when asked if she believed Patterson would appeal the verdict.
Asked whether she had expected Patterson would be convicted, Ms Rose said: “I didn’t have any expectations.”
Indeed, as I wrote several times, it was a toss up whether Patterson would be convicted. It all depended whether a jury bought the excuse that her clear pattern of evasion and lies were merely the result of panic. There was also the question of motive: something the prosecution never clearly enunciated in the trial.
What on earth was Erin Patterson’s motive?
It’s obvious: domestic violence coercive control […]
But because she’s a woman, for some reason our society struggles to see it.
So, was it a case of inverse sexism? Strip away any suggestion of gender and it becomes obvious:
One partner in a marriage is independently wealthy and is dominant in every way: intellectually, financially and in terms of the time they can devote to controlling the house, the children, access to extended family.
This dominant partner frequently excludes and marginalises the spouse, who spends time in caravan parks and rented flats, and who idolises the dominant partner, hoping in vain for a permanent resolution.
The dominant partner uses emotional blackmail – claims of illness suffered by themselves and the children – to create a sense of drama and suspense.
The dominant partner demeans and mocks the submissive partner’s faith and family.
When the powerless partner makes a first step towards independence – self-describing as “separated” on a tax return – the dominant partner is enraged and begins a campaign of abuse, while trying unsuccessfully to draw extended family into the dispute.
The dominant partner organises a showdown where a made-up dramatic story of serious illness is to be told – but the powerless partner fails to show up.
So, instead, a shocking act of abuse is perpetrated on innocent family members.
Let’s see how the ‘femicide’ obsessives, who erupt into a neurotic rage every time a woman is murdered, have anything to say about this.
The most damning evidence that this really was murder, rather than an innocent, tragic, mistake, was that Patterson and her children, who supposedly consumed the same contaminated meal, did not fall seriously ill. While Patterson claimed to have become sick afterwards, her ‘symptoms’ were barely medically noticeable and were almost entirely self-reported.
On the contrary, the sole survivor of the poisoning fell catastrophically ill and barely lived through the ordeal. While Patterson apparently was right as rain after just a day or two, sole survivor Ian Wilkinson spent three weeks in Intensive Care alone.
“It is inexplicable that four of five people who ostensibly ate the same meal fell fatally ill and only one person – the person who prepared the meal – did not,” [senior prosecutor Nanette Rogers] said.
With the trial concluded, further information about Patterson’s past can finally be revealed.
Erin Patterson abruptly left her job as an air traffic controller amid concern about her behaviour, treatment of colleagues and appearance, according to a former senior staff member.
The former colleague said Ms Patterson, then aged in her late 20s, also left Airservices Australia at the end of 2002 amid questions about possible financial wrongdoing.
Ms Patterson left the job not long before driving drunk and fleeing the scene of a car crash that led to a long-term licence ban.
Despite this, the court was told that Patterson had no criminal convictions.
Most ominous, though, is this:
Patterson, he said, was working for Airservices at the same time that a colleague’s food was tampered with, but no evidence could be found to substantiate the suspicion that Patterson was involved.
The colleague, the source said, discovered a blade from a pencil sharpener in a banana.
“Again, no one could prove that, but she had a way about her that was off-putting,’’ he said.
Well, the court has finally proved that Erin Patterson is a murderer.
