D
Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #14 *Arrest*
- Thread starter TootsieFootsie
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2025
- Messages
- 1,727
- Reaction score
- 22,125
Defence says deaths were a 'terrible tragedy'
Mr Mandy told the jury what happened in the wake of the lunch was a “terrible tragedy”.“It was clear, to everyone in this courtroom, that Ian Wilkinson is a kind and good person,” he said.
He added that there was no reason to not believe Don, Gail and Heather were also kind and good people.
“Kind and good to Erin Patterson and everyone in the family,” he said.
He transported the jury back to the days of the trial when members of the Patterson and Wilkinson families were giving evidence.
“There was sadness in this courtroom,” he said.
“They were still grieving.”
Mr Mandy added that it was “natural” for the jurors to be moved by that.
He said since the four guests were “good, innocent people”, the jurors may have a desire to “punish” or “seek retribution” to whoever caused their deaths.
“We know that the actions of Erin Patterson caused the deaths of these three people,” he said.
But he told the jurors they must “fiercely guard” against that kind of reasoning.
14:46
'Those kinds of issues are relevant to intention,' he said.
Mr Mandy argued motive was 'usually fundamental' to proving intention.
He also said without a motive or reason then an intention to kill 'is very unlikely'.
Mr Mandy said the prosecution needed to demonstrate a motive but they didn't.
'And if they don't, you might think they fall short of proving intention,' he said.
Mr Mandy said intention was the most important element of the charge of murder.
'It's very odd then in this case when the prosecution says they can't come to you with a motive,' he said.
www.dailymail.co.uk
Defence lashes prosecution over lack of motive
Mr Mandy has pondered if Patterson had anything to gain from intentionally killing her lunch guests.'Those kinds of issues are relevant to intention,' he said.
Mr Mandy argued motive was 'usually fundamental' to proving intention.
He also said without a motive or reason then an intention to kill 'is very unlikely'.
Mr Mandy said the prosecution needed to demonstrate a motive but they didn't.
'And if they don't, you might think they fall short of proving intention,' he said.
Mr Mandy said intention was the most important element of the charge of murder.
'It's very odd then in this case when the prosecution says they can't come to you with a motive,' he said.
Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates
Follow Daily Mail Australia's live coverage of accused mushroom chef Erin Patterson's murder trial here.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 44,707
Yeah, what would they say- that she played Russian Roulette and took a 10-30% chance that she wouldn't get ill?
1m ago05.48 BST
Mandy says another reason to consider that the lunch guests were good and kind people is because Patterson had no reason to harm them.
He says he will touch on the absence of a motive, as the prosecution predicted in their closing address.
Mandy reminds the jury that the prosecution does not have to prove motive. But he says one element of the offence of murder is intention to kill or cause serious injury.
“They have to prove that’s what Erin Patterson meant to do,” he says.
“Proof of a motive or the fact of a motive can be very important to intention.”
Mandy says another reason to consider that the lunch guests were good and kind people is because Patterson had no reason to harm them.
He says he will touch on the absence of a motive, as the prosecution predicted in their closing address.
Mandy reminds the jury that the prosecution does not have to prove motive. But he says one element of the offence of murder is intention to kill or cause serious injury.
“They have to prove that’s what Erin Patterson meant to do,” he says.
“Proof of a motive or the fact of a motive can be very important to intention.”
2.49pm
While some of the arguments he plans to tell the jury might be “simple and obvious”, or perhaps something jurors might have already thought of, they are necessary, too.
This was the time, Defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, for jurors to be like judges – to use their heads and now your hearts. “It’s the law that the jury, when they are considering facts, they have to put aside their sympathies and prejudices and approach things rationally and intellectually.”
Colin Mandy SC.Credit: Jason South
Mandy has resumed his closing address following a break for lunch.
He tells the jury that the three who died after the beef Welling lunch – Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson were good people. So was Ian Wilkinson.
It is a desperately sad story, he says. But, he adds, that this is a trial about facts.
Don Patterson, Gail Patterson, Heather Wilkinson and Ian Wilkinson.
“We know that the actions of Erin Patterson caused the deaths of those three people and their serious illness,” Mandy said. But he said a jury needed to put aside that natural reaction in their decision-making.
“This case is not about who is responsible in some general way. This case is about a criminal offence with elements that the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt,” Mandy said.
Mandy said it could be confronting to put that to one side, but as a judge, what’s in one’s heart has no relevance at all to considering the facts.
The goodness of the lunch guests is important, he tells the jury, because “why on Earth would anyone want to kill those people?”
Don and Gail had never been anything but kind to Patterson. They were also her children’s only grandparents, he said.
Why would Erin Patterson want to kill them or cause them serious harm?
“Because of a brief period of tension in December of 2022? Which had absolutely nothing to do with Ian and Heather?”
He finished his focus on this point on the statement prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC, got right in his opinion:
“And as Dr Rogers predicted correctly, I will be making a submission to you that there’s an absence of a motive.”
Motive, he added, was significant when considering intention.
www.theage.com.au
No Motive? A closing address pivots to intent
By
This is, Erin Patterson’s lawyer tells the jury, the last chance he has to speak on the accused mushroom cook’s behalf.While some of the arguments he plans to tell the jury might be “simple and obvious”, or perhaps something jurors might have already thought of, they are necessary, too.
This was the time, Defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, for jurors to be like judges – to use their heads and now your hearts. “It’s the law that the jury, when they are considering facts, they have to put aside their sympathies and prejudices and approach things rationally and intellectually.”
Colin Mandy SC.Credit: Jason South
Mandy has resumed his closing address following a break for lunch.
He tells the jury that the three who died after the beef Welling lunch – Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson were good people. So was Ian Wilkinson.
It is a desperately sad story, he says. But, he adds, that this is a trial about facts.
Don Patterson, Gail Patterson, Heather Wilkinson and Ian Wilkinson.
Mandy said that as human beings, jurors might have an instinctive reaction to say those responsible for the lunch guests’ deaths might be held to account.
“We know that the actions of Erin Patterson caused the deaths of those three people and their serious illness,” Mandy said. But he said a jury needed to put aside that natural reaction in their decision-making.
“This case is not about who is responsible in some general way. This case is about a criminal offence with elements that the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt,” Mandy said.
Mandy said it could be confronting to put that to one side, but as a judge, what’s in one’s heart has no relevance at all to considering the facts.
The goodness of the lunch guests is important, he tells the jury, because “why on Earth would anyone want to kill those people?”
Don and Gail had never been anything but kind to Patterson. They were also her children’s only grandparents, he said.
Why would Erin Patterson want to kill them or cause them serious harm?
“Because of a brief period of tension in December of 2022? Which had absolutely nothing to do with Ian and Heather?”
He finished his focus on this point on the statement prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC, got right in his opinion:
“And as Dr Rogers predicted correctly, I will be making a submission to you that there’s an absence of a motive.”
Motive, he added, was significant when considering intention.
Erin Patterson murder trial day 33 as it happened: Accused mushroom cook lied to authorities and in witness box, prosecutor says in concluding argument; defence argues no intent, panic explains actions
Inside courtroom four in Morwell, Patterson, on trial for murder, listened intently as prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC, concluded her closing argument, and defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, commenced his.
now05.52 BST
Mandy says without a motive the jury is “left guessing about the most important element of this trial and that’s intention”, he says.
He says the prosecution has spent a lot of time “scratching around” to find evidence about animosity in Patterson’s family dynamics.
He points to evidence the prosecution led about Patterson and Simon having a dispute about child support and other financial arrangements in December 2022.
“They want to show there was some kind of difficulty … and that might provide a reason to murder his parents and his aunt and uncle six months later,” he says.
“Even saying it aloud … shows how unpersuasive that argument is.”
Mandy says the disputes over finances for their children occurred over a few days in December 2022.
“It was a brief spat, we say, about child support, which the evidence says was resolved amicably.”
“Obviously Erin was upset. She freely acknowledged that. She was venting to her Facebook friends … even months before the lunch.”
Mandy says without a motive the jury is “left guessing about the most important element of this trial and that’s intention”, he says.
He says the prosecution has spent a lot of time “scratching around” to find evidence about animosity in Patterson’s family dynamics.
He points to evidence the prosecution led about Patterson and Simon having a dispute about child support and other financial arrangements in December 2022.
“They want to show there was some kind of difficulty … and that might provide a reason to murder his parents and his aunt and uncle six months later,” he says.
“Even saying it aloud … shows how unpersuasive that argument is.”
Mandy says the disputes over finances for their children occurred over a few days in December 2022.
“It was a brief spat, we say, about child support, which the evidence says was resolved amicably.”
“Obviously Erin was upset. She freely acknowledged that. She was venting to her Facebook friends … even months before the lunch.”
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2021
- Messages
- 1,382
- Reaction score
- 15,763
Key Event
1m ago
Defence says no 'anger or aggression' apparent between Erin and Simon Patterson
By Joseph Dunstan
Mr Mandy then addresses evidence the jury has heard from Simon Patterson, who described "extremely aggressive" messages from his wife in a family group chat during their dispute.
The defence lawyer tells the jury that when he showed Simon messages he was referring to, Simon said the messages were from another time.
Mr Mandy then reads out some anodyne messages between those in the group, which included Erin, Simon, Don and Gail.
He says there was no "evidence" of the inflammatory messages apart from Simon's evidence, and the "tone" of the messages he's read out just now show there was no "warring ... anger or aggression" between Simon and Erin, or Erin and her in-laws.
He says by December 18, the messages show things were on an "even keel" between Erin and Simon.
1m ago
Defence says no 'anger or aggression' apparent between Erin and Simon Patterson
By Joseph Dunstan
Mr Mandy then addresses evidence the jury has heard from Simon Patterson, who described "extremely aggressive" messages from his wife in a family group chat during their dispute.
The defence lawyer tells the jury that when he showed Simon messages he was referring to, Simon said the messages were from another time.
Mr Mandy then reads out some anodyne messages between those in the group, which included Erin, Simon, Don and Gail.
He says there was no "evidence" of the inflammatory messages apart from Simon's evidence, and the "tone" of the messages he's read out just now show there was no "warring ... anger or aggression" between Simon and Erin, or Erin and her in-laws.
He says by December 18, the messages show things were on an "even keel" between Erin and Simon.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2021
- Messages
- 1,382
- Reaction score
- 15,763
Just started... and of course she is nodding.
Just now
A break is called
By Joseph Dunstan
Erin Patterson is wearing a pink shirt today, and is nodding as her defence barrister makes his closing address to the jury.
A brief break is called, and the hearing is adjourned.
Just now
A break is called
By Joseph Dunstan
Erin Patterson is wearing a pink shirt today, and is nodding as her defence barrister makes his closing address to the jury.
A brief break is called, and the hearing is adjourned.
14:49
Mr Mandy said the Crown wanted to show there was some kind of difficulty with Patterson's relationship with Simon which might have caused her to harm his parents.
Mr Mandy said that 'flare up' between Simon and his wife happened over a few days in December 2022.
'It was a handful of days in December 2022,' he said.
Mr Mandy said the period from December 5 to December 9 was the 'relevant period'.
'It was a brief spat about child support that the evidence says was resolved amicably,' he said.
14:54
Mr Mandy said Simon (pictured) described a message as 'extremely inflammatory'.
'And Simon was asked about those messages and child support issues,' Mr Mandy said.
Mr Mandy also said Simon talked about sorting out financial issues and bringing in a mediator on December 9, 2022.
Mr Mandy said Simon said he felt he was 'getting to resolve it' and he thought Patterson was 'extremely aggressive'.
The defence barrister said that aggressive message was in relation to the mediator around December 9.
Mr Mandy argued his client 'wasn’t aggressive, just a bit upset'.
www.dailymail.co.uk
Prosecution accused of 'scratching around' for a motive
Mr Mandy has accused the prosecution of 'scratching around' for a motive while the trial was in process.Mr Mandy said the Crown wanted to show there was some kind of difficulty with Patterson's relationship with Simon which might have caused her to harm his parents.
Mr Mandy said that 'flare up' between Simon and his wife happened over a few days in December 2022.
'It was a handful of days in December 2022,' he said.
Mr Mandy said the period from December 5 to December 9 was the 'relevant period'.
'It was a brief spat about child support that the evidence says was resolved amicably,' he said.
14:54
Defence: Patterson wasn't 'aggressive' to Simon
Mr Mandy has denied his client was aggressive while he detailed the messages during the December period which have been previously read to the court.Mr Mandy said Simon (pictured) described a message as 'extremely inflammatory'.
'And Simon was asked about those messages and child support issues,' Mr Mandy said.
Mr Mandy also said Simon talked about sorting out financial issues and bringing in a mediator on December 9, 2022.
Mr Mandy said Simon said he felt he was 'getting to resolve it' and he thought Patterson was 'extremely aggressive'.
The defence barrister said that aggressive message was in relation to the mediator around December 9.
Mr Mandy argued his client 'wasn’t aggressive, just a bit upset'.
Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates
Follow Daily Mail Australia's live coverage of accused mushroom chef Erin Patterson's murder trial here.
As I said before, I think the prosecution should have called an expert witness to confirm things like this, otherwise the defence can make up anything in an information vacuum to cast reasonable doubt.
The same goes for other similar questions about the toxins, such as how to toxins can cross contaminate and absorb into the beef fillets or into other items cooking in the oven. Also the effect of vomiting and the impact it would have if any, on the toxin absorption depending how long the vomiting occurred after the meal.
I just hope the Jury have enough common sense to rule these lines of doubt from the defence out, but if not, I think a post mortem of the trial will come back to these.
I suspect the defence looked quite hard for a rebuttal medical/toxicology expert - someone to say that in unique circumstances someone could be only very mildly affected. That there wasn’t one is very telling.
- Joined
- May 28, 2024
- Messages
- 749
- Reaction score
- 5,663
And remembering Erin Patterson said the kids ate the same lunch, she fed her kids the leftovers.
Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC put to Ms 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," Ms Patterson said.
BUT THEN SHE SAID....
Ms Patterson was "initially reluctant" to have her children assessed because she knew they had not eaten leftovers from the contaminated lunch
I think Mr Mandy knows he's dooooooooooooomed..!
Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC put to Ms 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," Ms Patterson said.
BUT THEN SHE SAID....
Ms Patterson was "initially reluctant" to have her children assessed because she knew they had not eaten leftovers from the contaminated lunchI think Mr Mandy knows he's dooooooooooooomed..!
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2025
- Messages
- 1,727
- Reaction score
- 22,125
Unfortunately the bulimia angle was only raised in cross - which I don't think the prosecution anticipated or they would have covered that basis. IMO
14:56
Mr Mandy said that was because the messages weren't ever 'extremely aggressive'.
'And then his memory became that it was at some other time,' Mr Mandy said.
Mr Mandy said in Simon's evidence he mentioned his son being tired and the messages related to that.
Mr Mandy also said there was nothing unusual about 'spats between separated couples'.
'It doesn't provide any kind of motive for a person to murder his parents and his aunty,' he said.
14:59
'There's not hatred,' Mr Mandy said.
Patterson also told Simon she took the children to the Hobbit set and they enjoyed it.
The couple also shared 'normal communications' about their kids which Mr Mandy described as 'friendly banter'.
Mr Mandy said Simon later had a 'pleasant exchange' with Patterson about her fallen tree on December 18.
'They're back on an even keel,' he said.
www.dailymail.co.uk
Spat between Patterson and Simon 'doesn't provide any kind of motive', jury hears
Mr Mandy said Simon was shown messages but the estranged husband said they weren't the messages he claimed were 'aggressive'.Mr Mandy said that was because the messages weren't ever 'extremely aggressive'.
'And then his memory became that it was at some other time,' Mr Mandy said.
Mr Mandy said in Simon's evidence he mentioned his son being tired and the messages related to that.
Mr Mandy also said there was nothing unusual about 'spats between separated couples'.
'It doesn't provide any kind of motive for a person to murder his parents and his aunty,' he said.
14:59
Jury told Patterson and Simon weren't 'warring' after earlier spat
Mr Mandy said the couple 'were not warring' after Patterson and her children returned from New Zealand.'There's not hatred,' Mr Mandy said.
Patterson also told Simon she took the children to the Hobbit set and they enjoyed it.
The couple also shared 'normal communications' about their kids which Mr Mandy described as 'friendly banter'.
Mr Mandy said Simon later had a 'pleasant exchange' with Patterson about her fallen tree on December 18.
'They're back on an even keel,' he said.
Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates
Follow Daily Mail Australia's live coverage of accused mushroom chef Erin Patterson's murder trial here.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 44,707
Bingo! You can't have it both ways. She got the children out of there so they wouldn't be poisoned during the meal, then claimed she got sick from the meal too, but in time for her to feed bad leftovers to her children??? In reality, she fed them beef to make people believe that the BW's were safe because her children ate them (only they didn't- they ate non-poisoned steak that she had extra of).And remembering Erin Patterson said the kids ate the same lunch, she fed her kids the leftovers.
Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC put to Ms 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," Ms Patterson said.
BUT THEN SHE SAID....
I think Mr Mandy knows he's dooooooooooooomed..!
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2021
- Messages
- 1,382
- Reaction score
- 15,763
Just now
An update on the trial timeline
By Joseph Dunstan
When the jury comes back, Justice Christopher Beale tells them he's likely to start giving them final instructions from Monday.
"With the wind at my back, I might finish it by Tuesday afternoon," he says.
This means deliberations for the jury will likely begin in the middle of next week.
An update on the trial timeline
By Joseph Dunstan
When the jury comes back, Justice Christopher Beale tells them he's likely to start giving them final instructions from Monday.
"With the wind at my back, I might finish it by Tuesday afternoon," he says.
This means deliberations for the jury will likely begin in the middle of next week.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2012
- Messages
- 2,548
- Reaction score
- 10,169
The press can be there. Yes, the judge will tell them if manslaughter is on the table or in the bin with the beef wellingtons. It's a slow process.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
