VERDICT WATCH Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #16 *Arrest*

Status
Not open for further replies.

TootsieFootsie

Well-Known Member
Websleuths Guardian
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
16,528
Reaction score
117,063
  • #1
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2
ADMIN NOTE:

IMPORTANT

Effective with Erin Patterson's arrest, sub judice is in effect and will be until a trial has concluded. For anyone not familiar with the judicial principle of sub judice, please review the following.

WS is based in the USA but we do try to manage the various discussions to comply with laws of other countries.

As this trial is in Australia, the case is under sub judice so please avoid anything that violates the following principles:

Basically anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial
Any suggestion, opinion, or direct accusation that the accused is either guilty OR innocent
(i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer"; use "the accused", "the alleged killer", or "the defendant")
A defendant’s previous history of any offences is off limits
Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges, lawyers, any officer of the Court) is off limits
Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence is off limits
Any non compliance with an Order of the court is off limits

Note in the event of an Appeal subsequent to verdict:
Appeals are usually heard by senior judges who are not likely to be influenced by the media, therefore responsible comment is usually considered acceptable once a trial has concluded, regardless of if there is going to be an appeal.

Posts that are determined to constitute a violation of sub judice will be removed. To avoid this, please review the following from the Victoria Law Reform Commission and post accordingly:

10. Sub judice contempt: restricting the publication of prejudicial information
 
  • #3
Please continue here.
 
  • #4
I will admit I am feeling disheartened after today.
 
  • #5
I will admit I am feeling disheartened after today.

Because of the judge sounding biased?
It feels a bit like that to me as well, but I think it's important to consider that the defendant is *technically* considered innocent at this point, and she is entitled to a fair trial.

The judge's words sound more reasonable to me if pretend the defendant is a completely different person, one who I haven't come to personally despise and feel such contempt towards.
It's not as easy thing to put my own bias aside like that.

Did that make sense?
 
  • #6
Because of the judge sounding biased?
It feels a bit like that to me as well, but I think it's important to consider that the defendant is *technically* considered innocent at this point, and she is entitled to a fair trial.

The judge's words sound more reasonable to me if pretend the defendant is a completely different person, one who I haven't come to personally despise and feel such contempt towards.
It's not as easy thing to put my own bias aside like that.

Did that make sense?


Yes basically that - hopefully tomorrow is a better day. Didn’t the judge indicate that lying wasn’t an issue as such?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
It's hard to tell from the media reports, but I think the judge may be laying out a kind of flowchart for the jury to follow.

For example...

If you believe EP's testimony in its entirety, then you must acquit.
If you do not, then consider these questions (e.g., where the mushrooms came from; what was the purpose of the lunch; was Erin really sick; etc)

At the end, the jury should have a list of items where they have assessed how much they believe EP's version of events. And then they can use that list to come to a conclusion about what actually happened before, during and after the lunch.
 
  • #8
The judge is trying to be impartial so the jury will base their judgement on the facts and not because he's leading them in one direction over another.
 
  • #9
The Court is very different than in the US, with the judge here laying out the evidences, seemingly sorting them into a flow chart of sorts. I feel like in the US the prosecution usually does that at closing.

But what I think I'm understanding is this:

The defense only put Erin on the stand. So she stands out. And like any witness, it's up to the jury to weigh her testimony. If they believe her, they have crossed into reasonable doubt territory. If they don't believe her, they can't stop THERE and find her not guilty. Now they have to look at the State's witnesses and give weight to their testimonies. And hold that evidence to the BARD bar.

In other words, JUST finding EP not credible (if that's what they find) is NOT ENOUGH to find her guilty. She could lie WILDLY and still be could NOT GUILTY if the jury finds the State didn't reach BARD.

He's being methodical and careful, lest EP get wrongly convicted merely for being a liar. IMO he's protecting the record against appeal.

jmo
 
  • #10
Here are the rest of yesterdays updates


12:40

Justice Beale outlines key evidence​

Justice Beale has told the jury about the tendency evidence they should take into account when deciding whether 'the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt' Patterson 'deliberately put death cap mushrooms in the beef Wellingtons'.
'If you find that she had a tendency to pick and eat wild mushrooms, including putting them in meals she served to others or if you think it is a reasonable possibility that she had that tendency, you may consider that it increases possibilities that the death cap mushrooms ended up in the beef Wellingtons accidentally, rather than deliberately,' Justice Beale said.


12:43

Jury warned to be wary of kids' evidence​

Justice Beale has warned the jury about the evidence of Patterson's children because they were not cross-examined in court.
'This was done to spare the children of added torment,' he said.
Justice Beale said mistakes could have been made in their evidence and they needed to determine whether they accepted their evidence in whole or in part.


12:49

The five key witnesses in prosecution case​

Justice Beale said five prosecution witnesses were of note: the first being Simon Patterson (pictured right).
Justice Beale discussed Patterson's relationship with her husband over the years
The jury heard Simon said his friendship with Patterson had been 'strong' until late-2022.
Simon said the lunch invite came off the back of information related to a 'medical issue'.
The jury was reminded about this line of questioning, which took place in the opening days of the trial.
Simon told the jury Patterson had wanted to talk about 'this serious matter' at the lunch.
Justice Beale said Simon had been challenged on his recollection of the matter being described as 'important' or 'serious'.
The jury heard Simon had not used those words in his police statement.


12:54

Jury reminded about evidence of lunch survivor Ian Wilkinson​

Justice Beale is taking the jury back through the evidence of Pastor Ian Wilkinson (pictured) who survived the lunch after spending a period in intensive care.
The jury heard Mr Wilkinson said he remembered being invited to the lunch after a discussion with Gail and Don Patterson.
Justice Beale said Mr Wilkinson told the jury he thought the beef Wellingtons were on an oven tray and he had told police the same.
The jury was reminded about what Mr Wilkinson said about Patterson's cancer claims.
The pastor had told police Patterson said she had 'suspected cancer'.
He then gave evidence he thought she said she had cancer.
'I think she was saying she had cancer,' he said at trial.


13:00

Doctor named as key prosecution witness​

Justice Beale told the jury Leongatha Hospital doctor Dr Chris Webster (pictured) was also a key prosecution witness.
The jury was reminded of Dr Webster's evidence when he encountered Patterson at the hospital.
Dr Webster also answered questions about conversations he had with other medical staff at Leongatha and Monash Medical Centre.
Justice Beale said Dr Webster was quizzed during the trial about the conversations he had regarding transferring patients to better equipped metropolitan hospitals.
The jury was also reminded about the process that went into having Patterson transferred between hospitals.


13:01

Sister-in-law's evidence highlighted to jury​

The jury has now been taken to the evidence of Patterson's sister-in-law Tanya Patterson.
Tanya had told the jury Simon and Patterson's relationship had been good for 'many years' after their separation but it had deteriorated in the last few months before the lunch.
Tanya said Simon didn't attend Christmas holidays with the family and Patterson had taken the kids out of school without telling Simon.


13:11

Heath department officer's evidence under the microscope​

Justice Beale is going through the evidence of health department officer Ms Atkinson who spoke with Patterson several times after the lunch.
Ms Atkinson had been leading the public health investigation into what ingredients Patterson used in the lunch and where the mushrooms were sourced from.
The jury heard Ms Atkinson gave evidence that Patterson initially claimed she used Woolworths mushrooms in the Wellingtons.
Ms Atkinson also made a document outlining her notes from conversations with the accused.
Justice Beale then turned to the topic of Patterson's claims about dried mushrooms being purchased and Ms Atkinson said it was unclear if Patterson had used the mushrooms in a previous dish.
Ms Atkinson said Patterson mentioned the dried mushrooms smelt a 'bit off' so she stored them in a jar.
The trial is on a break and will resume at 2.15pm.


14:31

The eight topics the prosecution alleged were 'inconsistent statements'​

Justice Beale is now taking the jury through the 'alleged prior inconsistent statements by the accused'.
He told the jury the prosecution (pictured) wanted him to highlight the eight 'topics' of alleged inconsistent statements.
The topics Justice Beale listed are:
1. Whether the accused had a tendency to pick and eat wild mushrooms between 2020 and 2023.
2. Whether the children were invited to or free to attend the lunch on July 29.
3. The source of the mushrooms that went into the beef Wellingtons.
4. How much the accused ate of her beef Wellington.
5. How much Gail Patterson ate of her beef Wellington.
6. When the accused claimed she started to experience diarrhoea.
7. Whether the accused knew or suspected the lunch was the cause of Don and Gail's illness only in the evening of Sunday July 30, 2023.
8. Whether the accused knew that Donald and Gail Patterson were in comas by the morning of Tuesday, August 1, 2023.


14:37

Jury bursts into laughter at Judge's 'Dr Mushroom' mistake​

Prior to the lunch break, Justice Beale drew a laugh from the jury and the court room when he mispronounced a doctor's name as 'Dr Mushroom'.
Justice Beale had been taking the jury through Patterson's claims she had a tendency to forage for wild edible mushrooms and what the accused told witness Dr Laura Muldoon.
'Dr Muldoon gave evidence she asked Ms Patterson whether she used wild mushrooms in the beef wellington,' Justice Beale said.
'Ms Patterson said she thinks she told Dr Mushroom, ah Muldoon, she had not used wild mushrooms.'
Justice Beale joked after the courtroom burst into laughter that his mistake was 'deliberate just to check if you were still awake'.
He then laughed himself before moving on.


14:40

Patterson's foraging claims highlighted to the jury​

Back to the eight topics, Justice Beale said Patterson (legal team pictured) claimed to have cooked up some foraged mushrooms from her property and ate them.
Justice Beale also said Patterson claimed she would put the mushrooms in meals 'we all ate'.
Patterson told the jury she'd chop up the mushrooms into such small pieces the kids couldn't pick them out.
She claimed she foraged at the Korumburra botanical gardens and at her property.
Patterson claimed to have picked wild mushrooms at the gardens including slippery jacks and honey mushrooms.


14:42

Kids claimed they weren't invited to the lunch​

Regarding topic two, Justice Beale said Simon suggested Patterson wasn't keen on the kids attending the lunch due to the discussion of the 'serious matter'.
Patterson's daughter said her mum told her the lunch was for adults and 'adult stuff' would be discussed.
Justice Beale also reminded the jury Patterson's son also said the kids weren't invited to the lunch.


14:42

Patterson's claims about source of mushrooms put to the test​

Justice Beale has turned to topic three, the source of the mushrooms served in the lunch.
The jury again heard about claims the mushrooms had come from the local supermarket.
They also heard about the Tupperware container, which Patterson 'now' believed was 'possible' it contained foraged mushrooms.
Patterson claimed she only realised days later foraged mushrooms might have been in the container, the jury was reminded.


14:50

What Patterson initially said about the mushrooms​

Justice Beale, still discussing the source of the mushrooms, has addressed the initial concerns doctors had that death caps were in the lunch.
The jury heard Patterson simply mentioned Woolworths as the source of the mushrooms during her initial conversations.
The jury heard Simon's brother Matthew Patterson also called Patterson to probe her for information on the source of the mushrooms.
'She mentioned fresh mushrooms from Woolies and some dried mushrooms from a "Chinese shop",' the jury heard.
Justice Beale also said a doctor at the Austin Hospital also asked about the mushrooms on July 31.
The doctor said Patterson again claimed they had come from Leongatha "Safeway", now known as Woolworths, and a Chinese shop in Oakleigh.
The jury heard Patterson could not remember the name of the shop, suggesting perhaps it was in Glen Waverley instead.
A doctor from Monash, on July 31, also spoke to Patterson, asking her about what was in the meal.
The doctor said Patterson claimed she used dried mushrooms, possibly shitake or porcini, which she got from a Chinese shop.
The doctor said she asked if any had been foraged and Patterson denied it.
The jury heard Patterson was asked repeatedly about where the dried mushrooms had come from and again, she denied foraging, the jury heard.


14:51

Patterson gave 'various locations' to where the dried mushrooms originated​

The jury heard Patterson gave various locations for where the dried mushrooms may have originated.
Child protection worker Katrina Cripps (pictured) claimed Patterson also mentioned pre-sliced mushrooms from Woolworths and that some mushrooms came from a Chinese grocer.
Ms Cripps said Patterson had hoped the dried mushrooms would add more flavour.


14:59

Who ate what at the fatal lunch​

Justice Beale has turned to topic four and the question of how much of the Wellington Patterson ate.
Patterson claimed she 'ate some' of her Wellington
'A quarter or a third,' Justice Beale said.
Patterson later claimed she ate half of her meal, according to Ms Cripps.
Justice Beale also broached topic five, how much Gail Patterson ate.
The jury heard Patterson gave evidence Gail (pictured with Don) ate 'quite a lot' of hers.
'So, Ian and Heather ate all of theirs. Don ate all of his and Gail ate quite a lot of hers, not all of it,' Patterson previously told the jury.
'Don finished off what she hadn't eaten. I ate quarter or a third, somewhere around there.'


15:02

Questions over when Patterson first felt unwell​

Topic six, when Patterson claimed she started to experience diarrhoea.
Justice Beale said Simon claimed Patterson said she felt unwell on the afternoon after the lunch.
The jury heard Simon claimed Patterson said she had diarrhoea symptoms.
'She was worried she could have an accident,' he said.
Ms Cripps said Patterson told her she felt unwell the evening of the lunch.
During a trip out that night, Patterson claimed she didn't leave the car because she was worried about pooing her pants.
Patterson also claimed her seated position acted 'like a cork'.


15:07

Jury told to determine which witness accounts to believe​

Justice Beale has taken the jury to police suspicions Patterson knew the meal was poisoned and also discussed about when the accused might have learnt when Don and Gail were sick.
Justice Beale has told the jury if someone made an 'inconsistent statement' they could use it to assess a witness' credibility.
The jury was also told they 'could use which ever version of the account they wished'.
'[If a] witness' prior statement is inconsistent with his or her evidence in court, you will have two different accounts from the same witness,' Justice Beale said.
'It is for you to determine which accounts, if any, to believe.'


15:20

Jury told about qualifications of expert witnesses​

Justice Beale is now explaining the evidence of prosecution expert witnesses Dr Matthew Sorell (pictured) and Cybercrime Squad cop Shamen Fox-Henry.
The jury was ran through their qualifications before being reminded about some of the complex terminology used by the experts, particularly linked to the evidence related to mobile phone movements.
The jury heard Dr Sorell is an experienced telecommunications expert whose company specialises in phone location data.
Dr Sorell also has a PHD and lectures at the University of Adelaide and has consulted in more than 400 criminal matters Australia-wide.
The prosecution utilised Dr Sorell to give his expert evidence after analysing Patterson's phone data connections to local base stations the prosecution alleged put Patterson in Outtrim and Loch shortly after death cap sightings.


15:34

Court erupts in laughter after judge makes another harmless mistake​

Justice Beale has drawn the laughter of the courtroom and the jury over another simple mistake.
He was attempting to explain to the jury Dr Sorell's 'garden hose' theory about how a phone may remain linked to a certain base station even if the phone has moved to a new location.
The analogy was mentioned similarly to when you turn a garden hose off at the tap and there's still water running at the end.
'Using the analogy of a garden line, of the garden gnome… of a garden hose,' Justice Beale said before the court erupted into laughter.
The jury was told once again how mobile phone towers worked and what kinds of coverage they offered in the area police alleged Patterson travelled to, to collect death cap mushrooms.
The jury heard the phone expert admitted there were 'limitations' on the accuracy of his evidence.
The jury heard further information was often needed to prove a phone was in a certain area.


15:58

Jury told Patterson 'possibly' visited death cap hot spots​

The jury was taken through the dates police allege Patterson made trips to Outtrim and Loch, where death caps had been sighted and posted about on the iNaturalist website.
'You may use Dr Sorell's opinions as evidence of the accused having possibly, possibly visited the Loch post code on the morning of the 28th of May 2023,' Justice Beale said.
The judge also told the jury there was no evidence Patterson 'actually visited the [Loch] postcode'.
Justice Beale reminded the jury it is the prosecution case Patterson visited Loch and Outtrim to harvest death cap mushrooms.
The jury heard Patterson bought the dehydrator on the same day as one alleged visit while another expert, Dr Tom May (pictured), suggested photos of mushrooms in that dehydrator were death caps.
Justice Beale drew more laughs when he told the jury they 'didn't need to bring their toothbrush tomorrow' before sending them home for the day.
The trial has concluded for the day and the Daily Mail Australia's live coverage will resume at 8am local time on Wednesday, June 25.

 
  • #11

Alleged prior inconsistent statements by the accused​

Justice Beale has now turned to alleged prior inconsistent statements by the accused.

He said there were eight topics of alleged inconsitent statements the prosecution asked him to address.

Those topics are:

  1. Whether she had a tendency to pick wild mushrooms between 2020 and 2023
  2. Whether the children were invited to the lunch or free to attend
  3. The source of the mushrooms in the beef wellington
  4. How much she ate of the beef wellington
  5. How much Gail ate of the beef wellington
  6. When she started experiencing diarrhoea
  7. When she suspected the lunch was the cause of Don and Gail Patterson’s illness
  8. Whether she knew Don and Gail were in comas by 1 August 2023

Topic 3: The source of the mushrooms in the beef wellington​

Justice Beale read Patterson’s testimony, in which she told the court most of the ingredients came from Woolworths and some from the Asian grocer.

She also said she didn’t begin to suspect the dried mushrooms were the cause of the poisoning until days after the lunch.

Justice Beale read testimony from Dr Webster, in which he said Patterson told him she bought the mushrooms from Woolworths.

He then referred to testimony from Dr Laura Muldoon, Rhonda Stuart, and Sally Ann Atkinson, in which they all said Patterson denied using foraged mushrooms.

The court heard Patterson also told the child protection worker that she had sourced the mushrooms from an Asian grocer and Woolworths.

Topics 7 & 8: When did Patterson become aware of her former parents’-in-laws illness and their critical states​

Topic 7: When Patterson suspected the lunch was the cause of Don and Gail Patterson’s illness

Patterson gave testimony that when she fed her children the leftovers, she did not suspect the beef wellington was the cause of Don and Gail’s illness. Justice Beale read testimony from Dr Laura Muldoon, which suggested that was not the case.

8. Whether Patterson knew Don and Gail were in comas by 1 August 2023

Patterson previously told the courrt that she did not know her former parents in-law were in comas on 1 August 2023. Justice Beale read testimony from Tanya Patterson, in which she said Patterson was aware about Don and Gail’s states when she visited Patterson in hospital on that day.

Jury instructed on how to assess inconsistencies in witness statements​

Justice Beale said inconsistent statements occur when the same witness has given two different accounts of the same events.

He told the jury sometimes truthful witnesses inadvertently make inconsistent statements.

He said jurors can either assess which of the two statements is most likely to be correct, and use that one to form their judgement during deliberations.

Alternatively, he said jurors may use the inconsistent statements to determine the reliability of the person who gave the statement.

Judge explains the role of expert testimony​

Justice Beale has explained to the jury why it is sometimes necessary to call experts to provide evidence in cases.

“Ordinarily witnesses are not allowed to give their opinions in the case,” Justice Beale said.

“However the law says people with specialised knowledge or training are allowed to give their opinions... if that will assist you the jury in making your opinions.”

Justice Beale then ran the jury through the technical evidence provided by telecommunications expert Dr Matthew Sorell regarding Patterson’s phone records, including technical terms and the findings from his analysis.

Justice Beale said there are limitations to his evidence, which have already been noted to the jury.

Justice Beale said the jury can use Dr Sorell’s evidence as the possibility she visited Loch and Outtrim, but said they cannot use it as evidence that she actually visited those two postcodes on the dates in question.

Court wraps up for the day​

Court has finished for the day.

Follow along tomorrow for more updates.

 
  • #12
17h ago03.35 BST

Hearsay evidence​

Beale tells the jury about the hearsay evidence the trial has heard.

He recalls Simon testifying that the day after the lunch Heather told him Patterson served herself on a different coloured plate. Simon said while driving his aunt and uncle to the hospital, Heather asked whether Paterson was short on crockery.

Simon also gave evidence that his father, Don, said Patterson told the lunch guests she had cancer.

He says Ian testified that Heather remarked that Patterson had a different coloured plate to the guests at the lunch.

Beale says it is up to the jury to determine if Heather made these statements and whether Don said this to Simon.

If they accept this hearsay evidence, they can use it in their deliberations, Beale says.

He says there is a need for caution when considering hearsay evidence from Simon and Ian Wilkinson.

“Their evidence is about statements that were made out of court,” he says.

Beale says these may be unreliable.

17h ago22.45 EDT
Beale returns to a point about tendency evidence.

He says if the jury finds Patterson had a tendency to forage for wild mushrooms and use them in meals, or if they find it is a reasonable possibility “you may consider it increases the possibility” that the death cap mushrooms accidentally ended up in the beef wellingtons.

Beale says the jury must consider that Patterson’s children were not cross-examined in the trial due to an agreement by both sides.

He says this means they must approach the children’s evidence with caution.

17h ago04.04 BST

Inconsistencies in five witnesses' evidence​

Beale says both parties have highlighted inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses compared to statements they had made earlier.

He says there are five witnesses that fall under this category.

He begins with Simon’s evidence.

First, Simon was cross-examined about his prior statement that he considered his relationship with Patterson post-separation to be “strong”. While cross-examined, he said he meant friendship not relationship.

Second, Simon testified that when Patterson invited him to the lunch she told him she wanted to discuss a serious and important medical issue. When cross-examined about this, Simon said he could not remember the exact words Patterson used.

16h ago04.58 BST

Inconsistencies in evidence​

Beale continues to outline the inconsistencies in evidence from other witnesses:

Ian Wilkinson

First, Ian’s evidence that the beef wellingtons were served from a tray. Ian told the court he did not see where the beef wellingtons came from. During cross-examination, Ian agreed he told police the beef wellingtons were served on a tray.

Second, Ian’s evidence that Patterson told her lunch guests she had cancer. During cross-examination, the defence said he told police earlier that Erin announced she had a “suspected cancer”. Ian said he thought Patterson was saying she had cancer.

Dr Chris Webster

Beale turns to whether Webster said it was a daily struggle to transfer patients from Leongatha hospital to larger hospitals. When asked about whether this was a struggle for regional hospitals, he disagreed. He later accepted he said this earlier and said it was true.

Tanya Patterson

Beale turns to the topic of whether Tanya noticed a deterioration in the relationship between Erin and Simon Patterson. Tanya testified she said this occurred about 12 months prior to the lunch. In an earlier hearing, she said she noticed this from January 2023. During cross-examination, Tanya agreed she could not give an exact timeframe.

Sally Ann Atkinson

Beale says the inconsistent evidence relates to when Patterson told Atkinson she purchased the dried mushrooms from the Asian grocer and whether Patterson said she used these previously.

15h ago14.42 AEST

Eight alleged inconsistent statements by Erin Patterson​

Beale then turns to the eight alleged inconsistent statements by Patterson that the prosecution has raised.

1. Whether she had a tendency to pick and eat wild mushrooms

Patterson told the court her interest in wild fungi began in 2020. She said she consumed mushrooms growing near her house in Korumburra. In Patterson’s formal police interview on 5 August 2023, Patterson was asked if she had foraged mushrooms in the past. She replied: “never”. Beale also points to the evidence of Prof Rhonda Suart who spoke to Patterson at Monash hospital and asked if Patterson had been “mushrooming”. “She said no,” Stuart told the court.

2. Whether Patterson’s children were invited to or free to attend the lunch

Patterson said the day before the lunch her daughter asked her what they were planning to do the following day. She told her the lunch guests were coming over but her brother and his friend were going to the cinemas and her daughter liked the sound of that. Simon gave evidence that when Patterson invited him to the lunch she told him she was keen for the children to not attend the lunch so they could discuss a “serious” matter. Patterson’s daughter said her mother wanted to have lunch with Don, Gail, Ian and Heather to discuss “adult stuff”. Patterson’s son said his mother wanted only the adults to attend the lunch.

15h ago14.50 AEST

Third and fourth alleged inconsistencies by Erin Patterson​

Beale outlines the next two alleged inconsistencies by Patterson:

3. The source of mushrooms that went into the beef wellingtons

While testifying, Patterson said she now realised there was a possibility that foraged mushrooms may have been in the Tupperware container which also contained the store-bought dried mushrooms she said she used in the beef wellington meal. She said she realised this was a possibility on 1 August 2023. Dr Chris Webster said when Patterson first arrived at Leongatha hospital on 31 July 2023 he asked where she got the mushrooms and she gave a “single word response” and said Woolworths.

Simon’s brother, Matthew Patterson, said when he called Patterson on the same day he asked where the mushrooms were sourced from. He said Patterson mentioned fresh mushrooms from Woolworths and dried mushrooms from a Chinese grocer in the Oakleigh area. Dr Veronica Foote said Patterson told her she bought fresh mushrooms from Safeway in Leongatha and an Asian grocer in Melbourne in the months prior to the lunch.

Beale also touches on the evidence of Dr Laura Muldoon who spoke to Patterson on 31 July 2023. She said Patterson told her the mushrooms were bough from a Chinese grocery store in Oakleigh or Glen Waverley. Muldoon said Patterson denied using foraged mushrooms.

4. How much Patterson ate of her beef wellington

Patterson said she ate between a “quarter to a to a third” of her beef wellington. Child protection worker Katrina Cripps said Patterson told her she ate half of her beef wellington

15h ago14.59 AEST

Fifth and sixth alleged inconsistencies by Erin Patterson​

Beale moves onto the following alleged inconsistencies by Patterson:

5. How much Gail ate of her beef wellington

Patterson said Gail did not eat all of her beef wellington. Cripps said Patterson told her Gail ate a half of her beef wellington.

6. When Patterson claimed she started to experience diarrhoea after the lunch

Patterson said she began to feel unwell the evening of the lunch, between 10pm and midnight. Simon said he had a “vague recollection’ Patterson said she became feeling unwell around 4.30pm on the day of the lunch. He said Patterson told him this the day after the lunch. Cripps said Patterson told her she began to feel unwell in the evening on the day of the lunch and before she dropped her son’s friend off. Cripps said Patterson recalled staying in the car while dropping her son’s friend home so the seat acted like a “cork” and prevented her from having an accident.

15h ago06.09 BST

Seventh and eighth alleged inconsistencies by Erin Patterson​

Beale goes through the final two of eight alleged inconsistencies in Patterson’s evidence:

7. When Patterson suspected the lunch was the cause of Don and Gail’s illness

Patterson said that when she fed her children the leftovers of the meal the day after the lunch she did not suspect that the beef wellington meal caused Don and Gail to become ill. Dr Laura Muldoon’s evidence contradicted this.

8. Whether Patterson knew Don and Gail were in comas by 1 August 2023

Patterson said she did not know her parents in-law were in comas on 1 August 2023. Patterson’s sister-in-law, Tanya Patterson, told her she knew that Don and Gail were in induced comas on this date when she visited her in hospital.

15h ago06.15 BST
Beale says if the jury accepts a witness made an inconsistent statement they have two options:

1. They can use the prior statement as evidence in the case, even if it’s inconsistent with subsequent testimony

2. They can use the statement to assess the reliability of the witness

“It’s for you to determine whether or not to draw this conclusion from any inconsistencies you find,” he says.

He says a witness who has made inconsistent statements has not necessarily lied.

14h ago06.41 BST
Beale turns to the expert evidence of telecommunications expert Dr Matthew Sorell and digital forensics expert Shamen Fox-Henry, from Victoria police’s cybercrime unit.

He says Sorell agreed there were “significant limitations” to his analysis.

Sorell said his conclusions about a “possible visit” to locations of death cap mushroom sightings did not equate to a definitive visit to a postcode, Beale says.

Sorell said data showing a phone’s connection to a base station could not prove a phone was in a particular area without further information.

14h ago15.54 AEST
Beale says jurors should consider Sorell’s evidence in conjunction with other evidence in the trial.

He says the prosecution relies on Sorrell’s evidence, in combination with other evidence, to infer that Patterson sourced death caps from Loch on 28 April to 2023

The court previously heard that retired pharmacist Christine Mckenzie posted a reported sighting of death cap mushrooms on the citizen science website iNaturalist on 18 April 2023.

Beale outlines the other evidence the prosecution uses to make this inference:

- Patterson’s familiarity with the iNaturalist website and alleged visit to it on May 2022 to search a world map of death cap mushrooms

- Patterson purchasing a dehydrator on the same day as the alleged visit

- Patterson photographing wild mushrooms in that dehydrator soon after this date

- Mycologist Dr Thomas May said the photograph of wild mushrooms was consistent with death cap mushrooms

Beale says the defence argues, that in Sorell’s opinion, the phone records are also consistent with Patterson not visiting Loch or Outtrim.

14h ago16.17 AEST
Before the jury leaves the room, Beale says: “you don’t need to bring your toothbrush tomorrow”, an indication that they will not be sequestered to consider their verdict until at least Thursday.

Beale will continue his instructions to the jury from 10.30am tomorrow.

13h ago16.40 AEST

What the jury heard on day 36 of the mushroom lunch trial​

Here’s a recap of what the jury heard on day 36 of Patterson’s trial:

1. Justice Christopher Beale began delivering his instructions to the jurors before they retire to consider their verdicts later this week. He said the jurors were the “judges of the facts” in the case.

2. The jury should cast aside prejudices and sympathies while deliberating the verdict, Beale said. “The fact Patterson told lies must not cause you to be prejudiced against her,” he said.

3. Beale said Patterson’s trial had garnered “unprecedented media attention” and a lot of public comment. “If any of that has reached your eyes or ears or does so in the coming days ... you must be particularly careful not to let it influence you in any way,” he said.

4. If the jury accepts Patterson was of good character they can use it to assess her credibility.

5. Beale outlined alleged prior inconsistent statements by witnesses. He said jurors could accept the earlier statement made by a witness or use the earlier statement to assess the reliability of a witness.

 
  • #13
yesterday 12.43pm

The evidence about mushrooms​

By​

Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale said the jury heard evidence from the accused woman, Erin Patterson, that she had a tendency to forage for edible wild mushrooms from about 2020, and picked and ate what she found.

In summarising Patterson’s evidence to the jury, the judge said the accused said she loved the taste and tried various varieties from places such as grocers, including Asian grocers, and from the wild.

She said she used the mushrooms in curries, pasta dishes and soups and that she thought the exotic varieties tasted better.

Mushrooms, the accused said in her evidence, grew at her three-acre property at Korumburra in 2017 to 2018 and also at the local botanic gardens and rail trail. Some were edible, but one had her worried, she told the jury, and she would scroll through Facebook messages as part of her mushroom research.

“Eventually she told you she started consuming them,” Beale told the jury in his charge.

He told the jury that Patterson said in her evidence she became confident enough to fry some foraged mushrooms in butter and put them in her children’s meals, after chopping them up small enough so her son and daughter would be unable to notice them.

“She told you that she accepted that death cap mushrooms were in the beef Wellingtons, she told you that the vast majority of the mushrooms for that meal came from the local Woolworths in Leongatha, although some came from [an] Asian grocery store she purchased from in the 2023 April school holidays,” Beale said.

Beale recapped that Patterson said in her evidence that she bought a dehydrator when she moved to Leongatha, and posted photographs of it to Facebook. She later dehydrated mushrooms picked from the local botanical gardens, but they did not turn out well.

That was more of an “experiment” before Patterson said she went on to dry and eat other mushrooms as she grew in confidence, the judge summarised.

She maintained she did not pick any from under oak trees at the botanical gardens, but did pick them from near three trees there.

In Patterson’s pantry in May and June 2023, Beale told the jury, there was a Tupperware container with different dried mushrooms inside.

Beale said Patterson agreed that she later picked mushrooms from her Leongatha property, and in the lead-up to the fatal lunch, but denied ever seeking toxic mushrooms.

But during her evidence she agreed she lied to others in the aftermath of her lunch about foraging.

When police searched her house, the judge told the jury, Patterson agreed that police didn’t find any books about mushrooms, but noted some books remained in the garage unpacked.

Beale told the jury: “If you find that she had a tendency to pick and eat wild mushrooms, including putting them in meals she served to others, or if you think it is a reasonable possibility that she had that tendency, you may consider that it increases the possibilities that the death cap mushrooms ended up in the beef Wellingtons accidentally, rather than deliberately.”

Arguments made to the jury by the opposing legal teams​

Arguments made by the prosecution:

  • The only evidence Erin Patterson foraged for edible mushrooms came out of her mouth
  • Patterson was a self-confessed liar
  • Photos she took didn’t constitute evidence of her eating wild mushrooms
  • Before 2022, she had a good relationship with estranged husband Simon Patterson, and he told others he never knew her to forage for mushrooms
  • Her children said they had no memory of their mother foraging
  • There were no messages to family or online friends regarding foraging
  • No books on wild mushroom foraging at her home
  • Patterson denied being a forager until the “recent invention” of her story
Arguments made by the defence:

  • Erin Patterson loved mushrooms
  • More people started foraging during pandemic lockdowns
  • That her children didn’t recall her foraging was consistent with them being young children
  • Photos of wild mushrooms at her home were found on an SD card seized by police
  • Patterson likely visited the iNaturalist website, but her interest wasn’t sinister as she only wanted to know if death caps grew in South Gippsland
  • She didn’t hide purchasing the dehydrator or telling her online friends about it
  • If Patterson was guilty she would have dumped the dehydrator before the lunch
  • She gave consistent evidence
  • There was no evidence of a motive to kill her lunch guests
  • She is a person of good character
yesterday 1.02pm

Cautions on coloured plates and cancer discussion​

By​

The next topic the jury is being taken through is referred to as hearsay evidence.

Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale said this included things that Erin Patterson’s estranged husband, Simon Patterson, and Ian Wilkinson, the surviving lunch guest, said they heard from the other lunch guests before they died.

This type of evidence includes Simon Patterson’s evidence that Heather Wilkinson spoke to him about the accused woman eating from a different coloured plate, and that his parents, Don and Gail Patterson, said Erin Patterson spoke about having cancer, possibly ovarian cancer, at the lunch.

Ian Wilkinson, the judge said, gave evidence about his wife talking about Erin Patterson eating from a different coloured plate at the July 29, 2023 lunch.

“It’s for you to determine if Heather made the alleged statements to Simon and to Ian Wilkinson about Erin having a different coloured plate to the guests at the lunch and whether … Gail [Patterson] made the alleged statement to Simon about the topics of conversation at the lunch,” the judge told the jury in his charge.

“If you find that they did, you can use that fact as evidence that Erin did have a different coloured plate to the lunch guest, and that Erin told her lunch [guests] she had cancer and wanted advice on how to tell [her] kids.

“However, before you do so, I must warn you about the need for caution when considering the hearsay evidence of Simon Patterson and Ian Wilkinson.”

Beale said this warning was necessary because these alleged statements were made outside a court by others.

Errors could occur with out-of-court statements, the judge said, and while they might be truthful, they might not be an accurate account of what was said, as a person might have been mistaken.

yesterday 3.03pm

Alleged prior inconsistent statements from witnesses​

By​

Justice Christopher Beale has resumed his judge’s charge after the lunch break.

He is now drawing the jury’s attention to alleged prior inconsistent statements from witnesses, after both the defence and prosecution raised instances where evidence given in the witness box allegedly conflicted with earlier witness statements.

Some examples noted by Beale​

Simon Patterson

  • In a pre-trial hearing, Patterson said he and his estranged wife remained amicable and their friendship was strong, but at the trial told the jury he’d since learned amicable had two different meanings.
  • He told the jury that when Erin Patterson invited him to lunch, she said she had “important” medical news that she wanted to speak about and that it was a “serious” matter. During cross-examination, he agreed he didn’t use either word in his police statement, instead telling officers his estranged wife wanted to talk about “some” medical issues.
Ian Wilkinson (surviving lunch guest)

  • During cross-examination, the lunch survivor told the jury that the accused killer had told the lunch guests she had cancer. In his police statement, he told officers she had told them she had suspected cancer.
Tanya Patterson (sister-in-law)

  • At one stage, she said she believed the relationship between Simon and Erin began to deteriorate in 2022. She later told the jury it was late January 2023.
Sally Ann Atkinson (Department of Health official)

  • Atkinson told the jury Erin Patterson had told her she bought the mushrooms from Woolworths on a Friday, but her notes at the time did not mention a specific date.
  • She also told the jury she got the impression Patterson had previously used the dried mushrooms from the Asian grocery store, but later said she was confused by the conversations, which she said were not very clear.
Dr Chris Webster (Leongatha Hospital)

  • Webster told a pre-trial hearing it was a constant struggle to free up beds in regional hospitals by sending patients to bigger hospitals, but he told the jury it wasn’t a daily struggle.
yesterday 3.36pm

Patterson’s alleged inconsistent statements​

By​

At the request of the prosecution, Justice Christopher Beale has drawn the jury’s attention to some alleged inconsistent statements made by accused killer Erin Patterson on eight different topics.

Some of the points raised by Beale regarding Patterson’s statements​

  • Beale said Patterson told police she had never foraged for mushrooms, while she told the jury she had after developing an interest in picking and eating wild mushrooms from about 2020.
  • Patterson said she had asked her daughter if she wanted to see a movie instead of attending the lunch, while her daughter said her mother wanted to talk about adult stuff, so the children “were going to go to the movies together”.
  • Patterson allegedly told multiple witnesses she had included mushrooms from Woolworths and an Asian grocer in the beef Wellington meal, but she told the jury under cross-examination that she realised on August 1, 2023, that foraged mushrooms may have made their way into the meal.
  • Patterson told the jury she ate a quarter or a third of her beef Wellington, but told other witnesses she ate about half.
  • Beale said that on the evidence, Patterson said her diarrhoea began sometime between 10pm and midnight on the evening of the lunch on July 29, 2023. Simon Patterson’s evidence was that he recalled being told by Erin that she became unwell about 4pm or 4.30pm, when she raised concerns with him about having to drive her son’s friend home and the risk she may “poo her pants”.
“You should keep in mind the fact that a witness who gives inconsistent accounts is not necessarily lying. While dishonest witnesses are more likely to introduce inconsistencies in their stories, truthful witnesses may make mistakes about details,” Beale said.

yesterday 4.02pm

Judge reminds jury of limitations of expert evidence​

By​

Supreme Court judge Christoper Beale next reminds the jury that witnesses in criminal trials typically cannot give their opinion – instead, they focus on observations. But experts, Beale said, can do so – and the prosecution in this case relied on two of them, one of whom was cell tower expert Dr Matthew Sorell, who spoke about base station connections, among other things.

Sorrell told the jury that phone handsets usually connect to the base station that provide the best connection, but which is not necessarily the closest base station. Beale said Sorrell gave the example of a phone that may connect to different base stations depending on whether it’s being used at the front or back of a house. Weather and driving can also influence connections. Sorrell also said there were significant limitations on his analysis of this type of evidence, including on time and place.

Beale told the jury that Sorrell noted in his evidence that possible visits by Patterson to the townships of Loch and Outtrim – where death cap mushrooms had previously been observed – were not definitive visits. This applied to the prosecution’s allegations that Patterson visited Loch on April 28, 2023, and both Loch and Outtrim on May 22, 2023

Beale said the jury should consider Sorrell’s evidence alongside other evidence presented during the trial, and regard it as the accused “possibly” visiting those locations, but not evidence that she “actually” did so.

Patterson denies killing or attempting to kill anyone.

This concludes our coverage of court proceedings for the day.

The trial continues.

 
  • #14
Good morning. I'll be around to do the ABC updates today as it'll be a very cold and rainy day, perfect for being inside
 
  • #15
Good morning. I'll be around to do the ABC updates today as it'll be a very cold and rainy day, perfect for being inside
Good night, and thanks! Some of us are off to bed and look forward to seeing your reports in our morning,
 
  • #16
I have missed loads over the trial so has much been made about the fact she made individual pies instead of the traditional version?

To me that also points to intent because she controlled what mixture went in which pie.

MOOO
 
  • #17
I think that even if EP is acquitted, she will have a cloud of suspicion hanging over her head for the rest of her life, much like Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson.
 
  • #18
I have missed loads over the trial so has much been made about the fact she made individual pies instead of the traditional version?

To me that also points to intent because she controlled what mixture went in which pie.

MOOO
"She says she has "no idea" why she bought large additional quantities of filo pastry in the coming days.

"I'd only bought some a day before, but it looks like I must have forgotten I did that," she says."

If she is guilty - I think she bought extra pastry because if they all died and there were no lunch witnesses, she wanted to disguise the fact she'd made individual pasties, so she had to replace all the pastry they would see she'd bought, and show them she still had it in the house. Possibly too complicated though.
 
  • #19
I think that even if EP is acquitted, she will have a cloud of suspicion hanging over her head for the rest of her life, much like Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson.


Well, I certainly won't be popping over any time for afternoon tea :D

Regardless of what happened, the fact she didn’t disclose to her guests that she was picking mushrooms in the wild is nuts to me. Anybody experimenting with food and having guests over should give full disclosure. Let your dinner guests decide if they want to gamble with their lives. If a friend did this to me they would soon be a ex friend.

IMO
 
  • #20
‘By Mikaela Ortolan

During his evidence, Dr Sorell had identified that there were eight possible visits to the Loch postcode area based on phone data collected from one of Erin Patterson's handsets.

These possible visits took place across March 2022, April 2022, August 2022 and February 2023.’


Interesting considering the original charges, later repealed, dating Simon’s experiences of illness in April, May and September 2022 🤔
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Guardians Monthly Goal

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
152
Guests online
1,717
Total visitors
1,869

Forum statistics

Threads
638,532
Messages
18,730,268
Members
244,473
Latest member
Calvin Sky
Back
Top