The murder trial of ‘Mushroom Lady’ Erin Patterson is drawing to its close. Patterson is accused of killing three people – her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, and attempting to kill Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson – by serving them beef Wellingtons laced with poisonous death cap mushrooms. Cross-examination finished earlier this week and now the prosecution and defence are making their respective closing arguments.
As expected, the prosecution is basing their case on Patterson’s undeniable pattern of lies and evasions. The defence, meanwhile, is framing her actions and statements as the result of an innocent person panicking after accidentally poisoning her lunch guests, as well as zeroing in on the glaring hole in the prosecution case: an apparent lack of motive.
A senior crown prosecutor says accused mushroom killer Erin Patterson has told “so many lies it’s hard to keep track” in trying to cover-up the murder of her elderly lunch guests, and thought up a “carefully constructed narrative” to ensure she was never caught out.
In finishing her closing address on Tuesday, Nanette Rogers SC called on the jury to consider how they would act if they learned a beef Wellington meal they had prepared, eaten and served to their children had caused their four elderly relatives to fall critically ill.
She suggested the jury would not act as Ms Patterson did when she allegedly lied to authorities about the source of the ingredients, discharged herself from hospital against medical advice, and tried to block her children from attending hospital.
Rogers listed the pillars of the prosecution case as “four calculated deceptions”:
Fabricating a cancer claim as a pretence for the lunch
Hiding lethal doses of death cap mushrooms in a home-cooked meal
Attempting to make it seem like she suffered death cap mushroom poisoning
Sustaining a cover up to conceal her crimes
Patterson doesn’t deny that death cap mushrooms were served in the meal, but maintains it was entirely accidental. Her subsequent actions, she says, were the result of panic. The prosecution sought to discredit the ‘accident’ claim, arguing that Patterson “deliberately sought out and picked death caps”.
Defence barrister Colin Mandy’s closing address immediately highlighted the most obvious problem with the prosecution case: motive.
“With an absence of a reason, an intention to kill is very unlikely,” Mandy said.
Mandy added that to prove intention, the prosecution needed to provide a motive. He said the prosecution had been scratching around to find some suggestion of animosity in the family dynamics, and referred to evidence presented in the trial about messages between Patterson, her estranged husband and her in-laws regarding child support payments.
While there were some disputes between Patterson and her estranged husband, particularly around child support, the defence argues that they weren’t sufficient motive for murder.
“In some cases, it would be unusual if there wasn’t that kind of spats and disagreements,” Mandy said.
But he said that still did not provide “any kind of motive to murder someone’s parents and their uncle and aunt” […]
He returns the jury to the dynamic between his client and her estranged husband. Even after they separated, he said, Patterson and Simon continued to treat their assets as joint assets. He added that the closeness between Patterson, grandparents Don and Gail and the children continued.
A key piece of evidence is the dehydrator Patterson used to dry the foraged mushrooms. Far from a pattern of concealment, Mandy argued, Patterson was remarkably open.
The dehydrator’s purchase was openly shared on social media, specifically within a true crime group. This suggested a lack of concealment, Mandy told the jury.
Mandy said the dehydrator was not disposed of after the mushrooms were dehydrated or well before the lunch.
“Instead, its purchase was broadcast on social media.”
He asked jurors to focus on the timing. His client disposed of the dehydrator a day after she had a confrontation about the appliance with her estranged husband in hospital.
The timing of the disposal spoke volumes of her state of mind at the time, Mandy said. He also pointed out that Patterson had driven to the tip in her own car and the transaction was linked to her information.
“It can only have been panic – not because she is guilty, but because that’s what people might think,” Mandy said.
Defence also pointed out that Patterson directed police to the bin where leftovers from the meal were disposed.
“She must have been confident there was no poison in them in order to do that. She was wrong,” Mandy said.
Mandy said a guilty person, who had carefully planned the lunch and who had been at the premises for some time that morning, would have already thrown out the leftovers.
“Put them in a neighbour’s bin, bury them in the backyard ... instead of directing police where to find the evidence that there were death cap mushrooms in the bin,” Mandy said.
Finally, Mandy highlighted that Patterson was not required to give evidence, “forcing the prosecution to prove their case without her testimony”. Instead, she waived her right to silence.
The defence will finish its closing address today.
