GUILTY Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 *Arrest* #19

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #41
Other than being a monstrous murderer, I'm struck by the thought that Erin was also a coward. Couldn't even discuss things in an adult way, discussing her feelings and thoughts with Simon or his parents (not that they really need to be privy to that information). But no, I'll just kill them with some collateral damage to avoid suspicion. Plus she couldn't face them in hospital or even check on them. Cowardly and evil
 
  • #42
Well we cannot victim blame here on WS but yeah something isn't logical about that and we would need to know more.
I'm definitely not victim blaming and I really feel for Simon. To put it in perspective, both of my parents have passed, but hypothetically if they were still alive say and my ex had poisoned me on 4 occasions and then invited myself and my family for lunch, of course I would say no. Also I have absolutely no doubt at all that my parents would have said no, even if they thought he wouldn't poison them. They would say no, because he had poisoned me 4 times! Admittedly my parents were not religious and neither am I.
 
  • #43
Other than being a monstrous murderer, I'm struck by the thought that Erin was also a coward. Couldn't even discuss things in an adult way, discussing her feelings and thoughts with Simon or his parents (not that they really need to be privy to that information). But no, I'll just kill them with some collateral damage to avoid suspicion. Plus she couldn't face them in hospital or even check on them. Cowardly and evil
She was actually in the same room when the doctor spoke to her at Leongatha Hospital and she didn't even look in their direction, let alone ask after them.
 
  • #44
He thought he was the only target.
Couldn't conceive that she would poison his family.
He must wrestle with that guilt every day.
I know that, but why would they go when she had poisoned him 4 times???
 
  • #45
I don't think in anyone's wildest dreams ,anyone thought that Erin would murder Don & Gail or Heather & Ian ( thankfully Ian survived )
Would your parents accept a lunch invitation to your ex if he had poisoned you, their daughter, on 4 occasions?
 
  • #46
I think if we imagine our own family in the same situation as Simon and his family, we can see how different they were in their beliefs and attitudes. To be perfectly honest, I'm amazed that his family even spoke to Erin after what she did to him. I understand that they would have wanted to have been able to see their grandkids and the complexities around that, but still...
 
  • #47
She was actually in the same room when the doctor spoke to her at Leongatha Hospital and she didn't even look in their direction, let alone ask after them.
Yep, she's dreadful. Cowardly and contemptuous of her victims. Surely she'll get locked up for life
 
  • #48
Does anyone know what happened to the $1m Erin got for the sale of her Mt Waverly property that was sold just days after she was put into custody on the murder charges.
The home where she served the poisonous lunch is now mortgaged to pay legal fees and if there's anything left over can be used to compensate her victims families.

She's certainly a remarkable lady. Remarkably stupid to think she can invite people around for lunch and kill them all and get away with it and remarkably stupid to pay possibly $2m to lawyers and for all the help they gave her to get around 30 years in jail which she could have achieved defending herself free of charge.

People may say that Erin Patterson is clever. But I think she's one of the dumbest murderers currently locked away in Australian prisons.
 
  • #49
Yep, she's dreadful. Cowardly and contemptuous of her victims. Surely she'll get locked up for life
I damn well hope so! In the police interview, when the cop told her that Don and Gail had died, she barely raised an eyebrow. If she loved them as much as she said she did, she would have shown some emotion.
 
  • #50

R v Patterson (Ruling 4) [2025] VSC 105 (14 March 2025)​


JUDGE:Beale J
WHERE HELD:Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:6-7 & 10-14 February 2025
DATE OF RULING:14 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:R v Patterson (Ruling 4)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:[2025] VSC 105 (First Revision 20 March 2025)

---​
EVIDENCE — Admissibility — Alleged incriminating conduct — Whether evidence relevant — Whether probative value outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice to the accused — Whether evidence capable of being viewed as incriminating conduct — R v Lynn [2024] VSCA 62 — Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 55, 56, 137Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic), ss 18, 19, 20, 21.
 
  • #51
Does anyone know what happened to the $1m Erin got for the sale of her Mt Waverly property that was sold just days after she was put into custody on the murder charges.
The home where she served the poisonous lunch is now mortgaged to pay legal fees and if there's anything left over can be used to compensate her victims families.

She's certainly a remarkable lady. Remarkably stupid to think she can invite people around for lunch and kill them all and get away with it and remarkably stupid to pay possibly $2m to lawyers and for all the help they gave her to get around 30 years in jail which she could have achieved defending herself free of charge.

People may say that Erin Patterson is clever. But I think she's one of the dumbest murderers currently locked away in Australian prisons.
That $1 million has paid for her lawyers thus far, I believe. The figure would have to be around that mark.
Can the Leongatha house fund the appeal, now that the Crown has put a caveat on it? Even though her lawyers have also mortgaged it?
 
  • #52

R v Patterson (Ruling 6) [2025] VSC 108 (14 March 2025)​


ERIN PATTERSON
Accused​
---​

JUDGE:Beale J
WHERE HELD:Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:6-7 & 10-14 February 2025
DATE OF RULING:14 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:R v Patterson (Ruling 6)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:[2025] VSC 108 (First Revision 18 March 2025)
---​
EVIDENCE — Admissibility — Coincidence evidence — Where the prosecution relies on 8 similarities in respect of Events 1–4 to prove that, in respect of Events 1–3, the meals supplied were poisoned and to prove that, in respect of Events 1–4, they were deliberately poisoned by the accused — Whether the coincidence evidence has significant probative value (s 98) — Whether the probative value of the coincidence evidence substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect to the accused (s 101) — Perry v R [1982] 150 CLR 580 — Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 98, 101.
SEVERANCE — Where, by reason of the inadmissibility of the coincidence evidence relied on by the prosecution, it would be unfair to the accused to hear all charges together — Order for severance of Charges 1–3 from Charges 4–7 — Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 193.

The Coincidence Notice
  1. The amended Prosecution Coincidence Notice dated 24 January 2025 states:
    • 1. Pursuant tos98(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), the Prosecution gives notice that it intends to adduce evidence which will be relied upon to establish that the accused did a particular act and/or had a particular state of mind namely:
    • 1.1Deliberately poisoned Simon Patterson on 16/11/21 (Event 1);
    • 1.2Deliberately poisoned Simon Patterson on 25/5/22 (Event 2);
    • 1.3Deliberately poisoned Simon Patterson on or about 6/9/22 (Event 3);
    • 1.4Deliberately poisoned Gail Patterson on 29/7/23 (part of Event 4);
    • 1.5Deliberately poisoned Donald Patterson on 29/7/23 (part of Event 4);
    • 1.6Deliberately poisoned Heather Wilkinson on 29/7/23 (part of Event 4);
    • 1.7Deliberately poisoned Ian Wilkinson 29/7/23 (part of Event 4); and
    • 1.8 Intended to deliberately poison Simon Patterson on 29/7/23 (part of Event 4)

on the basis that, having regard to the similarities in the events and/or circumstances in which they occurred, it is improbable that each of the alleged victims suffered severe gastrointestinal illnesses after having consumed food prepared for them by the accused coincidentally.

2. The facts in issue that the Prosecution seeks to prove by relying on the improbability of coincidence are:
  • 2.1. The illnesses suffered by the victims in events 1 to 4 were caused by the victims consuming food prepared by the accused;
  • 2.2. The food prepared by the accused for each event was poisoned; and
  • 2.3. The accused deliberately poisoned the food for each event.

3. The Prosecution relies on the following points of similarity(“S”) between the events and the circumstances in which they occurred:
  • 3.1. S.1: the accused was related by marriage to each victim;
  • 3.2. S.2: the accused initiated/instigated each activity with Simon Patterson, and the four lunch guests, and arranged to provide/serve food;
  • 3.3. S.3: the accused prepared the food;
  • 3.4. S.4: the accused allocated the food;
  • 3.5. S.5: the accused ate a separate meal from Simon Patterson, and the four lunch guests;
  • 3.6. S.6: the accused’s two children, [Redacted], were not present at the time the food was served to Simon Patterson, and the four lunch guests;
  • 3.7. S.7: after consumption of the food each of Simon Patterson and the four adult family relatives suffered from severe gastrointestinal illnesses and
  • 3.8. S.8: at a time before or shortly after each event, the accused used a computer or other electronic device to access online content relating to poisons.

LegalFramework
  1. All section references below are to the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), unless other wise indicated.
  2. Sections98 and 101 provide as follows, relevantly:

98 The coincidence rule

(1) Evidence that 2 or more events occurred is not admissible to prove that a person did a particular act or had a particular state of mind on the basis that,having regard to any similarities in the events or the circumstances in which they occurred, or any similarities in both the events and the circumstances inwhich they occurred, it is improbable that the events occurred coincidentally unless:
  • (a) the party seeking to adduce the evidence gave reasonable notice in writing to each otherparty of the party's intention to adduce the evidence; and
  • (b) the court thinks that the evidence will, either by itself or having regard to other evidence adduced or to be adduced by the party seeking to adduce the evidence,have significant probative value.

Note. One of the events referred to in subsection (1) may be an event the occurrence of which is a fact in issue in the proceeding.

(2) ...

101 Further restrictions on ... coincidence evidence adduced by prosecution

(1) This section only applies in a criminal proceeding and so applies in addition to section ... 98.

(2) ... coincidence evidence about an accused, that is adduced by the prosecution, cannot be used against the accused unless the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect it may have on the accused.

Summary of Prosecution Opening

  1. The amended Summary of Prosecution Opening dated 24 February 2025 includes the following (foot notes deleted):

Trip to Wilsons Promontory, November 2021

Charge 1 – Attempted Murder


28. In 2019, the accused suggested to Simon Patterson that they go to South Africa together, travelling as a couple without their children. Simon Patterson agreed. They were to leave in March or April 2020, however, the trip had to be cancelled due to the on setof the Covid-19 pandemic.

29. As an alternative, the accused suggested that she and Simon Patterson go on a hiking and camping trip to Wilsons Promontory.The trip was delayed due to the changing Covid-19 restrictions, but eventually was to take place in November2021.

30. On Tuesday 16 November 2021, the accused came to Simon Patterson’s house in Korumburra to pack for the trip to Wilsons Promontory the following day. She gave him a Tupperware container of penne pasta Bolognese which she said she had made for the children to eat. The two of them sorted out what they needed to (sic) and the accused left. Simon Patterson finished the packing by himself and then ate the pasta before going to bed.

31. Early the following morning, he started to feel unwell. He drove to the accused’s house to pick her up for the trip. [Redacted]were at the house,along with Tanya Patterson who was there to care for the children while their parents were away.

32. Shortly after arriving at the house, Simon Patterson vomited multiple times in the toilet. He attributed his condition to ‘stress’and thought he would be alright, so he and the accused got into his car and left for their trip. The accused drove due to Simon feeling unwell.

33. As they were driving, Simon Patterson suddenly felt an urge to vomit. He quickly wound down the window and vomited. They continued on their journey but had to stop at Meeniyan where Simon suffered vomiting and diarrhoea and spent the morning going in and out of the public toilets. The accused booked some accommodation through Airbnb near Wilsons Promontory and they stayed there that night,as well as the following night. Simon Patterson was sick the whole time they were there, with continual vomiting and some diarrhoea.The accused provided Simon Patterson with electrolyte fluids and water. Simon discussed going to hospital with the accused, who suggested there might be a long wait there.

34. Eventually, on Friday 19 November 2021, the accused took Simon to the Urgent Care Centre at Leongatha Hospital. He was diagnosed with severe dehydration due to gastroenteritis and was admitted to the hospital. Blood test results showed he was suffering from acute renal impairment (kidney injury) with elevated creatinine levels and modestly elevated lactate. Simon was treated with intravenous fluids and his renal function was monitored. It continued to deteriorate despite rehydration. He remained in hospital overnight.The following morning, 20 November 2021, he was feeling better and was discharged with instructions to return to hospital the following day for further testing of his renal function.

35. On 21 November 2021, Simon Patterson returned to Leongatha Hospital as advised. Following further testing, which revealed his creatinine levels were still rising, Simon was transferred to Monash Medical Centre. A faecal specimen test conducted on 24 November2021 revealed markedly elevated calprotectin, consistent with significant bowel inflammation. He remained in hospital as his renal function recovered and was eventually discharged on 27 November 2021.

36. During Simon Patterson’s time in hospital, medical staff undertook extensive testing. The cause of his acute renal failure was presumed to be acute tubular necrosis secondary to dehydration due to the preceding gastroenteritis.However, the testing did not identify a cause of the vomiting and diarrhoea itself. Faecal specimens were negative for faecal pathologies and did not reveal underlying bowel pathology. Ultimately, treating doctors were unable to determine the underlying cause of this illness.

37. Simon was subsequently referred to consult with nephrologist Dr Trung Quachin the community, given he had suffered an episode of severe acute renal failure. His kidney function was monitored by regular blood tests and by 15December 2021 it had normalised.

38. Following this episode, Simon Patterson underwent a colonoscopy on 5 April2022, which revealed benign polyps, but was other wisenormal.

Trip to Howqua, May 2022

Charge 2 – Attempted Murder


39. Sometime after the November 2021 trip, the accused suggested to Simon that they go camping again, as they had missed out on their planned trip to Wilsons Promontory. Simon agreed and they planned a trip to Howqua, again as a couple without their children.

40. About a week before the trip, Simon Patterson went to the accused’s house one evening. The accused was making chicken korma curry and wanted Simon and the children to taste test various levels of spice in the curry. Simon tried the curries and selected his favourite.

41. On Tuesday 24 May 2022, Simon and the accused went camping near Howqua,staying at a public campground. The children remained at home. On the second night of this trip, 25 May 2022, the accused and Simon ate chicken korma curry with rice for dinner. The accused prepared the food for serving, which she had brought pre-prepared for the camping trip, while Simon was attending to the fire. Simon did not see how the meal was packaged or prepared.

42. Early the following morning, 26 May 2022, Simon Patterson started to feel sick. He opened the tent door and vomited outside.He continued to vomit and experience diarrhoea while the accused packed up the camp. The accused drove Simon to Mansfield Hospital,stopping along the way so that he could vomit.

43. At Mansfield Hospital, Simon was treated with intravenous fluids and anti-nausea medication. His vital signs were unremarkable.Ultimately, Simon was discharged later that day after he had stopped vomiting. The accused booked accommodation in Mansfield through Airbnb and provided him with electrolytes.His condition seemed to be improving.

44. The following morning the accused drove Simon Patterson home. That night, he stayed at his house by himself. He was still feeling unwell.

45. Early in the morning on 29 May 2022, Simon Patterson got up before sunrise and tried to go to the toilet. He was having trouble making it to the bathroom and called the accused for help at 5.20am. The accused came to Simon’shouse. He felt weak. The accused called an ambulance at 5.45am.

46. Simon Patterson was taken to Monash Casey Hospital by ambulance. His vital signs were significantly abnormal, with very low blood pressure. He was treated in the ambulance with intravenous fluids and adrenaline, but his blood pressure remained low for a further90 minutes despite these treatments.

47. Simon Patterson was admitted to Casey Hospital in haemodynamic shock.Initial blood testing revealed severe lactic metabolicacidosis, hypothermia,multi-organ failure, marked elevation of ALT suggesting liver ischemia and a blood film consistent with severe sepsis. An abdominal CT scan demonstrated severe bowel pathology with portal venous gas in the left lobe of the liver, a small volume of gas in the mesenteric vessels to mid-distal ileum and pneumatosis coli in the small bowel consistent with established infarction(necrosis or tissue death). Simon Patterson was admitted to the intensive care unit and was intubated. He received various medications including broad spectrum antibiotics.

48. Simon Patterson remained at Casey Hospital in the intensive care unit. He was critically ill and clinically very unstable, requiring multi-system support.

49. During his admission, he underwent various procedures, including:
  • a. Upper GIendoscopy (camera into the oesophagus and stomach, showing segmental severe mucosal changes with discolouration in the oesophagus), laparotomy and resection(removal) of 132 centimetres of ischemic small bowel due to necrosis on 29 May2022;
  • b. A repeat gastroscopy, further exploratory laparotomy and further resection (removal) of another 40 centimetres of ischemic small bowel due to necrosis on 31 May 2022;
  • c. A laparotomy for control of post-operative bleeding on 4 June 2022.

50. Various tests, scans and other investigative procedures were conducted by medical staff to determine the underlying cause of Simon Patterson’s presentation. Blood cultures taken on 29 and 30 May 2022 yielded no growth (did not produce abnormal results).A faecal specimen taken on 31 May 2022 detected Clostridium difficile (C diff) toxin A/B gene but the more specific immunoassay was negative. C diff was again detected on 16 June 2022 but was negative on 23July 2022.

51. Pathology of the resected small bowel reported extensive mucosal necrosis,consistent with shock and inadequate blood flow. No chronic disease or acute infective cause was reported, and there was no evidence of thrombosis,vasculitis, dysplasia or malignancy.The remaining small bowel, large bowel,caecum and transverse colon were healthy.

52. Ultimately, doctors were unable to determine the cause of this illness.

53. Simon Patterson was extubated on 14 June 2022. He was transferred to St John of God rehabilitation centre on 22 June 2022, following a 24-daystay in hospital. He remained in rehabilitation regaining strength after his period in intensive care until 8 July 2022.The accused offered for Simon to stay at her home while he recovered, and he stayed with her for a few weeks after being discharged from rehabilitation. During this period of time, Simon did not eat a great deal, and tended to prepare his own food so as not to be a burden. The accused would usually prepare the evening meals which they woulds hare as a family.

54. On 14 July 2022, Simon Patterson started seeing a general practitioner, Dr Christopher Ford, who he already knew through church and bible study. Given the nature of his symptoms during the first two illnesses, Dr Ford referred Simon to a gastroenterologist,Associate Professor Christopher Mills. Arrangements were made for Simon Patterson to have weekly blood tests for a month and then fortnightly blood tests to see if a cause of the illnesses could be determined and to monitor his recovery, including his potassium levels. His first blood sample was collected the same day – 14 July 2022. No abnormalities were detected.

55. Whilst staying with the accused, Simon Patterson became ill again. On 22July 2022, Simon and the accused ate lunch together– a beef stew with rice which the accused had prepared, and which only the accused and Simon ate.The children were not at home for lunch. At 5.19pm, the accused sent Simon a message on the Signal application, asking him to bring back the ‘empty stew plate (or full stew plate if you didn’t eat it)’. Simon responded that he ‘certainly ate it’.

56. Shortly after midnight the following morning, 23 July 2022, Simon Patterson started vomiting and suffering from diarrhoea. He attended Leongatha Hospitaland was transferred to Monash Medical Centre, where he remained for a few days.An abdominal CT scan was performed on 23 July 2022, and the results compared to the abdominal CT scan performed on 29 May 2022 (the day of his presentation to Casey Hospital). The major finding was a collection in the left upper quadrant with the anterior aspect touching the transverse colon. A repeat CT scan on 9September 2022 showed a decrease in size in this collection. A faecal specimen was sent for testing with no abnormal results detected. Simon was then discharged on 25 July 2022 and returned to the accused’s house.

57. Doctors were unable to definitively determine the cause of this illness at the time, however, the abdominal collection and the proximity of this illness to the recent admission with bowel resection with a prolonged ICU stay could result in a presentation with vomiting and diarrhoea. An infective gastroenteritis was investigated with a faecal specimen and no infective cause found.

58. Shortly after he returned to the accused’s house, the accused told Simon that she resented him and regretted asking him to stay with her. Later that day, Simon Patterson packed his belongings and returned to his own home.

59. On 25 August 2022, Simon consulted with Associate Professor Mills. Associate Professor Mills spent a long time going through Simon’s history, which he noted was highly unusual. The clinical history taken from Simon indicated that he had been completely well up until 2021. Associate Professor Mills had never seen a case like Simon Patterson’s before. He considered Simon’s presentation to be ‘unique’ because of the severity of the medical picture in a young person with no suggestion of pre-existing organ dysfunction.He also noted that Simon was well at the time of the consultation. Associate Professor Mills wondered whether Simon Patterson had contracted an infection called Clostridium Difficile (C diff) following a severe acute gastrointestinal illness,and considered this the most plausible answer at the time; however,noted its unusual presentation and sequelae. As a precaution,he ceased Simon’s use of Pantoprazole, which is a risk factor for recurring C diff,however, he did not form a conclusive viewabout the cause of SimonPatterson’s recurring illnesses.

Trip to Wilsons Promontory, September 2022

Charge 3 – Attempted Murder


60. After Simon Patterson returned home, he and the accused continued to havecontact. In late August or early September 2022, Simonand the accused spoke onthe phone. The accused suggested they catch up in person on a suitable day.Simon was pleased and encouraged,so immediately agreed. The accused suggestedthat they catch up during the day when the children would be at school. Simonsuggesteda walk at Wilsons Promontory and the accused offered to bring lunch.They made arrangements to go for a walk.

61. On the morning of Tuesday 6 September 2022, Simon Patterson did a routinestool sample for his gastroenterologist, AssociateProfessor Mills.

62. The same day, the accused and Simon went for a walk at Wilsons Promontorytogether, without the children. The accused broughtthem each a separatepre-packed lunch. The accused gave Simon his lunch – a pre-preparedchicken curry wrap in aluminium foil.The accused ate what appeared to be thesame filling except on a plate without the wrap.

63. Shortly after eating lunch, Simon Patterson began to feel unwell. They wenton a short walk on the beach before he went to thetoilet with diarrhoea. Hestarted to vomit and suffered some diarrhoea during the car trip home.

64. The accused and Simon drove to Donald and Gail Patterson’s house, asthey had collected [Redacted] from school. Simon continuedto vomit at hisparents’ house, and they called an ambulance for him.

65. Inside the ambulance, Simon noticed that he started to slur his words andhis muscles felt increasingly weak. He suffered a ‘seizure’requiring intravenous medication for seizure termination and was in a reducedconscious state. Simon was admitted to Monash CaseyHospital intensive care unitwith extremely low potassium levels. He went into polymorphic ventriculartachycardia (a potentiallylife-threatening heart rhythm) and was intubated.Simon received aggressive electrolyte replacement via central venous catheterthroughthe initial hours of admission. He remained in hospital for three daysas he recovered and was eventually discharged on 9 September2022.

66. The routine stool sample which Simon had provided on the morning of 6September 2022 before his walk with the accused was unremarkable– itindicated no obvious bacteria, parasites or inflammation in his intestines.

67. Again, his treating doctors could not determine the cause of this illness.
 
  • #53
I know that, but why would they go when she had poisoned him 4 times???

I think they are just such nice trusting people. They didn't feel at risk, probably thought Simon was exaggerating or being a bit 'silly', even. :(
Plus, she said she really needed to talk to them about a serious medical issue. There was that family pressure there to attend, and they seemed like really good samaritans. She knew how to play them like a fiddle, IMO.
 
  • #54
That $1 million has paid for her lawyers thus far, I believe. The figure would have to be around that mark.
Can the Leongatha house fund the appeal, now that the Crown has put a caveat on it? Even though her lawyers have also mortgaged it?

The estimates I've seen are that the trial and pre-trial has probably cost her at least 1.5m
 
  • #55
I think they are just such nice trusting people. They didn't feel at risk, probably thought Simon was exaggerating or being a bit 'silly', even. :(
Plus, she said she really needed to talk to them about a serious medical issue. There was that family pressure there to attend, and they seemed like really good samaritans. She knew how to play them like a fiddle, IMO.
Actually it was 3 times she had allegedly poisoned him. It would probably have been 4 times had he eaten the cookies. Yes, they must have been such kind people. The type of in-laws that anyone could hope for...
 
  • #56
Two bits of trivia from the very long report.

The police investigation into the poisonings was called Operation Hom-Pluto-2023.

In looking for the Asian shop mushrooms, the council went into high gear, visiting 14 stores in two days.

Between 2 and 3 August 2023, Mr Schonknecht visited 14 stores that were either Asian-style grocery stores, Indian-style grocery stores or fruit and vegetable sellers, across the suburbs of Oakleigh, Clayton and Mount Waverley which had been identified by the accused to Ms Atkinson.

 
  • #57

R v Patterson (Ruling 6) [2025] VSC 108 (14 March 2025)​


ERIN PATTERSON
Accused​
---​

JUDGE:Beale J
WHERE HELD:Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:6-7 & 10-14 February 2025
DATE OF RULING:14 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:R v Patterson (Ruling 6)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:[2025] VSC 108 (First Revision 18 March 2025)
---​
EVIDENCE — Admissibility — Coincidence evidence — Where the prosecution relies on 8 similarities in respect of Events 1–4 to prove that, in respect of Events 1–3, the meals supplied were poisoned and to prove that, in respect of Events 1–4, they were deliberately poisoned by the accused — Whether the coincidence evidence has significant probative value (s 98) — Whether the probative value of the coincidence evidence substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect to the accused (s 101) — Perry v R [1982] 150 CLR 580 — Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 98, 101.
SEVERANCE — Where, by reason of the inadmissibility of the coincidence evidence relied on by the prosecution, it would be unfair to the accused to hear all charges together — Order for severance of Charges 1–3 from Charges 4–7 — Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 193.


  1. The amended Prosecution Coincidence Notice dated 24 January 2025 states:
    • 1. Pursuant tos98(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), the Prosecution gives notice that it intends to adduce evidence which will be relied upon to establish that the accused did a particular act and/or had a particular state of mind namely:
    • 1.1Deliberately poisoned Simon Patterson on 16/11/21 (Event 1);
    • 1.2Deliberately poisoned Simon Patterson on 25/5/22 (Event 2);
    • 1.3Deliberately poisoned Simon Patterson on or about 6/9/22 (Event 3);
    • 1.4Deliberately poisoned Gail Patterson on 29/7/23 (part of Event 4);
    • 1.5Deliberately poisoned Donald Patterson on 29/7/23 (part of Event 4);
    • 1.6Deliberately poisoned Heather Wilkinson on 29/7/23 (part of Event 4);
    • 1.7Deliberately poisoned Ian Wilkinson 29/7/23 (part of Event 4); and
    • 1.8 Intended to deliberately poison Simon Patterson on 29/7/23 (part of Event 4)




  1. All section references below are to the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), unless other wise indicated.
  2. Sections98 and 101 provide as follows, relevantly:





  1. The amended Summary of Prosecution Opening dated 24 February 2025 includes the following (foot notes deleted):
I give her points for trying. Wow!
 
  • #58

R v Patterson (Ruling 7) [2025] VSC 133 (21 March 2025)​

ERIN PATTERSON
Accused​

---​

JUDGE:Beale J
WHERE HELD:Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:6-7 & 10-14 February 2025
DATE OF RULING:21 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:R v Patterson (Ruling 7)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:[2025] VSC 133

---​


EVIDENCE – Admissibility – Miscellaneous pieces of evidence impugned by accused who is charged with attempted murder (x4) and murder (x3) – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 55,56, 135, 137.

a) SPO[12] – THE ACCUSED’S INTEREST IN TRUE CRIME

Background
Summary of Prosecution Opening
  1. The amended Summary of Prosecution Opening dated 24 February 2025(‘Summary of Prosecution Opening’) states, relevantly(footnotesdeleted):
12. From approximately 2019, the accused formed connections with a number of online associates who came to know her through their participation in a Keli Lane true crime Facebook group. Over time, some participants of the group formed closer connections and began separate Facebook groups with one another, with discussions extending to news, current affairs and their personal lives. The accused participated in these groups under the Facebook account names‘Erin Patterson ’, ‘Erin Erin’, and ‘ErinErinErin’.
Submissions

  1. The accused objected to evidence that the accused’s online friends came to know the accused through their participation in a Keli Lane true crime Face book group. The accused submitted that how they came to know her was irrelevant(ss 55, 56). Alternatively, the accused submitted that if the evidence was relevant, its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice (s 137)

  1. The prosecution submitted that the evidence is relevant as context evidence. It explains how the accused came to know witnesses Barkley,Hay and Hunt and form a close online friendship with them. The prosecution submitted there was no danger of unfair prejudice.
  1. I consider that the impugned evidence is relevant for context. The accused is alleged to have made certain admissions in late2022 to her online friends regarding her animus towards Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson, all of whom were invitees to the fateful lunch. Understanding how the accused’s relationship with Barkley, Hay and Hunt began and developed will assist the jury in assessing the reliability of those admissions.
  2. The accused did not indicate the precise nature of the alleged unfair prejudice, but the fact that the primary Facebook group was a true crime group does not in my view create any danger of unfair prejudice. It will be readily appreciated by the jury that many,many people have an interest or even a fascination with true crime; that does not mean they are more likely to commit crime. If requested, a direction can be given to the jury to emphasise the point.
(b) SPO[26] – THE ACCUSED’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS SIMON PATTERSON

Background

Summary of Prosecution Opening
  1. The Summary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):
26. The accused discussed issues she was having with Simon Patterson in the Keli Lane Facebook group chat, in which she painted him in an un favourable light and expressed her unhappiness about issues such as the payment of child support. The accused described her self as an atheist in this group, and expressed frustration that Simon’s religion was preventing them from getting a divorce.

Submissions

  1. The accused submitted that this evidence was irrelevant (ss 55, 56). The accused submitted that the assertions of Barkley and Hunt regarding the accused’s criticisms of Simon Patterson are not borne out by the messages recovered by investigators and disclosed to the accused. The accused submitted that Barkley, Hunt and Hay are hostile towards the accused. Barkley admitted in her s 198B hearing that she was writing a book about, amongst other things,her association with the accused and had been communicating with at least one journalist about the proceedings. The accused submitted that these witnesses are vague about the timing and actual content of the accused’s criticisms of Simon Patterson and that,in any event, the criticisms postdate Events 1, 2and 3 which concern Simon Patterson. Relying on Moreno vR, the accused submitted that the circumstances surrounding the evidence of witnesses Barkley, Hunt and Hay should inform the assessment of whether the evidence passes the test of relevance. At one point during oral submissions, the accused asserted that the quality of the evidence was so poor that it was comparable to the ‘foggynight hypothetical’ discussed by the High Court in IMM v R but the accused subsequently withdrew that comparison.
  2. Alternatively,the accused submitted that the probative value of the evidence was low and was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice(s 137). The accused submitted that there was a risk of the jury overvaluing the evidence given that there is no evidence of motive for the accused to murder Simon Patterson or her lunch guests.
  1. The prosecution submitted that the evidence is relevant as evidence of the nature ofthe relationship between the accused and Simon Patterson. It demonstrates that the accused harboured resentment towards Simon Patterson in the lead up to the fatal lunch to which Simon Patterson was invited. The prosecution hypothesised that the inability of investigators to recover messages consistent with Barclay and Hunt’s assertion of the accused criticising Simon Patterson was due to the accused having removed the messages.The prosecution submitted that the impugned evidence — which is consistent with messages sent by the accused in December 2022— rebuts evidence that the prosecution anticipates the accused will adduce from some of the prosecution’s witnesses (including Simon Patterson) to the effect that the relationship between the accused and Simon Patterson was harmonious in the lead up to the fateful lunch.
  1. I consider that the accused’s criticisms of the quality of the evidence of the accused’s online friends goes to the weight,not the admissibility of the evidence. The evidence must be taken at its highest. The fact that messages have not been recovered to support the assertions of Barclay and Hunt is a matter going to the credibility and reliability of their evidence. IMM v R indicates that, save in very limited circumstances, credibility and reliability are to be assumed when assessing relevance and probative value. This is not a scenario where no reasonable jury could accept their evidence. Nor is it akin to the foggy night hypothetical,as the accused ultimately conceded during oral submissions.
  2. Although the accused’s expressions of unhappiness with Simon Patterson postdate Events 1–‍3, they are relevant to Event 4 because Simon Patterson was an invitee to the lunch. Indeed, the evidence indicates that the accused was particularly adamant that Simon Patterson should attend the lunch.The accused’s attitude towards Simon Patterson in the lead up to the lunchisconsequently relevant.
  3. Asfor the danger of unfair prejudice, the prosecution is not relying on theevidence of the accused’s animosity towards SimonPatterson (and DonPatterson and Gail Patterson) as evidence of motive for the accused to killthem. As such, the danger of the juryovervaluing the evidence is minimal. Ifrequested, directions highlighting that the prosecution only relies on therelationship evidenceas rebuttal evidence (not as evidence of motive) can begiven. Although the probative value of the evidence is modest, it is notoutweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

---​


 
  • #59
Continued from above post

(c) SPO[275] – THE ACCUSED’S POST REGARDING MUSHROOMS POISONING CAT

Background
  1. TheSummary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):
275. On 5 May 2020, 18 months prior to Simon Patterson’s first illness,the accused, utilising her Facebook username ‘ErinErin’, posted anumber of pictures of a mushroom to a webpage titled, ‘Poisons Help;Emergency Identification For Mushrooms& Plants’. The accused posted amessage alongside the photographs which read ‘My cat chewed on thismushroom justnow. He is having a vomit. Was in grassland near trees. I’min Victoria Australia’. The photographs included in the postwere laterfound on an SD card seized from the accused’s home, timestamped 5 May2020. The accused has never owned a cat.
Submissions
  1. Theaccused submitted that the evidence was irrelevant, noting that the mushroomsshown in the photographs are not death cap mushrooms.The accused submitted thatthe provenance of the photos is also uncertain. The accused submitted that ifrelevant, the probativevalue of the evidence was outweighed by the danger ofunfair prejudice.

The prosecution submitted that the evidence is relevant as it shows theaccused’s continuing interest in poisons. The prosecutionsubmitted thatthe provenance of the photographs is not uncertain as the same images were foundon an SD card seized from the accused’shome.

  1. This post occurred 18 months prior to Event 1. In my view, even if the evidenceof this post shows an interest in poisons, it is temporally remote. I note thatin Ruling 1, I excluded evidence regarding the accused downloading articles about poisons - see Summaryof Prosecution Opening at [274] and [276]— because they were more than two years or one year prior to Event 1 and were thus temporally remote.
(d) SPO[277], [282], [286], [288], [322-324] – CELL TOWER EVIDENCE REGARDINGUNDISPUTED TRIPS BY THE ACCUSED

Background
  1. TheSummary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):
277. Between 17 November 2021 and 18 November 2021, the dates on which theaccused and Simon Patterson travelled to Wilsons Promontoryprior to his firstillness, the accused’s mobile service data suggests she left theKorumburra area, travelling west of theSandy Point Exchange, remaining thereovernight.

...

282. On 24 May 2022, the date on which the accused and Simon Patterson travelledto Howqua before Simon’s second illness, theaccused’s mobileservice data suggests she headed to the Victorian alpine area. On 26 May 2022,the phone service data indicatesshe was in and around Mansfield, beforereturning to Korumburra on 27 May 2022 and remaining in the Korumburra areaduring 28 May2022.

...

286. On 29 May 2022, the accused’s mobile service data suggests shetravelled to Casey Hospital, Berwick. This coincides withSimonPatterson’s admission to Casey Hospital.

...

288. On 6 September 2022, the date on which the accused and Simon Pattersontravelled to Wilsons Promontory prior to his third illness,the accused’smobile service data suggests she travelled from Leongatha towards WilsonsPromontory before returning to Korumburraand Leongatha.

...

322. On 29 July 2023 at 3.29pm, less than an hour after the lunch concluded, theaccused drove her red 4WD bearing registration 1XZ4OZ477to the KoonwarraTransfer Station and Landfill. The accused deposited an unknown item/items and asmall amount of cardboard at 3.30pm,which the records indicate fell within thecategories ‘120 L bin’ and ‘.5 m pap/card’. At3.51pm, the accusedmade a payment of $9.50 to ‘DamsaEnvironmental’, the waste management company operating the KoonwarraTransfer Station.The accused’s mobile service data suggests she departedthe Leongatha area between 3.23pm to 3.45pm, consistent with headingsouthwest.(See Notice of Incriminating Conduct).

323. On 30 July 2023, the day after the lunch, the accused’s mobileservice left Leongatha at around 2.35pm, heading firstto Tyabb at around3.47pm, then returning to Leongatha at around 5.40pm consistent with the tripdescribed by [Redacted]. The accused’sphone records indicate she receiveda phone call from [Redacted] flight instructor at 3.48pm.

324. On 31 July 2023, two days after the lunch, the accused first presented toLeongatha Hospital shortly after 8.00am, before leavingat 8.10am. Theaccused’s mobile service passed through the Outtrim area between 8.55amand 8.58am. There is a gap in records,before the service is back in Leongathaat 9.23am. This was during the period after the accused discharged herself fromLeongathaHospital at 8.10am, and before she re-presented to Leongatha Hospitalat 9.48am. The service then departed Leongatha at 1.07pm, headedtowardsPakenham, and then to Monash Medical Centre from 2.42pm onwards, remaining thereuntil after 4.42pm the following day, consistentwith her movement betweenhospitals.
Submissions
  1. Theaccused submitted that to adduce cell tower evidence in relation to the datesand times of undisputed trip would be a waste oftime and should be excludedunder s 135. The accused indicated that dates and times of travel can be led by agreement.
  1. Theprosecution submitted that evidence bearing on a matter that is not in disputeis not thereby rendered irrelevant. The prosecutionsubmitted that the celltower evidence provides time certainty, which is especially relevant in relationto Event 2.
  1. Inrelation to [322] of the Summary of Prosecution Opening, I note that I ruled inRuling 4 that evidence of theaccused’s disposal of items at the tip on 29 July 2023 is inadmissible asincriminating conduct. Even ifthe cell tower evidence of this trip has some slight residual relevance, theevidence is excluded by s 137 because its probative value is outweighed bythe danger that the jury will engage in impermissible incriminating conductreasoning.
  2. Inrelation to the other undisputed trips, if there is an agreement of facts between the prosecution and the accused pursuant to s 191 as to the datesand times of these trips, it would be a waste of court time for the prosecution to lead cell tower evidenceabout those trips. Once that signed agreement offacts is filed, I will excludethe cell tower evidence under s 135(c).
(e) SPO[293]-[295] – THE ACCUSED’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS SIMON PATTERSON, DONPATTERSON AND GAIL PATTERSON
Background
Summary of Prosecution Opening
  1. TheSummary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):
Relationship between the accused and Simon

24. Following their separation in late 2015, the accused and Simon remained amicable, shared custody of their two children, spoke regularly, and even planned and took holidays together. Despite their separation in late 2015, Simon remained hopeful for some time that he and the accused would one day reunite.They continued to communicate with one another, and with other members of the Patterson family via the Signal messaging application.

25. In 2022, Simon first noticed a sustained change in his relationship with theaccused. On one occasion, when Simon was dropping the children home at Gibson Street, the accused expressed concern to Simon over the fact that he had listed himself as separatedon his tax return. Simon offered to amend his tax return,but the accused said instead that she would need to seek child supportfrom him. Simon was accepting of this. However, their communication from that point started to decline. Issues arose concerning the payment of child support, including whether Simon should make additional payments outside of child support for expenses such as schoolfees. The accused expressed these concerns in a Signal group chat between herself, Simon, Donald and Gail. At the start of term 3 in 2023, the accused changed [Redacted], without consulting Simon before hand.

26. The accused discussed issues she was having with Simon Patterson in the KeliLane Facebook group chat, in which she painted himin an unfavourable light andexpressed her unhappiness about issues such as the payment of child support. The accused described herself as an atheist in this group, and expressed frustration that Simon’s religion was preventing them from getting a divorce.

...

293. In December 2022, the accused was communicating with her online friends from the Keli Lane Facebook group using the ErinErinErin profile. She wrote about her relationship with Simon Patterson - she was critical of him and described her dislike for him. The accused wrote that Gail has been ‘horrified’ when she claimed child support from Simon, who shedescribed as a ‘deadbeat’.She complained that Donald and Gail would not intervene in the issues between her and Simon and had suggested she and Simon pray.She wrote, ‘This family I swear to 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 god’ and at one point described Donald and Gail as ‘a lost cause’.

294. On 6 December 2022 at 10.44am, the accused posted the following message to the group:
‘Don rang me last night to say that he thought there was a solution toall this if Simon and I get together and try to talkand pray together (two upwards looking face emojis) and then he also said Simon had indicated there was a solution to the financial issues if I withdraw the child support claim?! My head nearly exploded and I was like what?? And don goes oh sorry just ignore what I said I don’t want to get involved. So anyway I sent a group message to them all last night saying how Simon is behaving isunconscionable and asking me to withdraw the child support claim is wrong and disadvantages me and his children and how dare he etc .Don messaged to say he and Gail don’t want to get involved in the financial things but just hope we will pray for the kids (upwards looking face emoji) so I replied this morning saying I understand it’s uncomfortable and awkward for them but I want to copy them into this stuff because Simon needs to be accountable for the decisions he is making that are hurting his children and I would hope they care about their grandchildren enough to care about what Simon is doing. That’s when don said they tried to talk to him but he refused to talk about it so they’re staying out of it but want us to pray together. I’m sick of this 🤬🤬🤬🤬 I want nothing to do with them. I thought his parents would want him to do the right thing but it seems their concern about not wanting to feel uncomfortable and not wanting to get involved in their sons personal matters are overriding that so fuckem.’
295. On 7 December 2022, she wrote:
‘His parents sent me a message yesterday afternoon and Simon sent meone last night but I've read neither and I don't thinkI will. I don't want tohear it. Simon's will just be horrible and be gaslighting and abusive and itwill ruin my day and his parentsmessage will be more weasal words about notgeting involved so I think I'm going to just move on. I don't need anything fromanyof those people. Simons parents say they don't want to take sides but bytheir very actions they have. If their daughter came tothem laying all the samecomplaints about her husband, that I did about Simon, they would never say toher "oh well we can't believe you until we hear Josh's side, right now it's your word against his". No they would just believe her. If their daughters husband just walked away and refused to support her kids they would have things to say to him. But by refusing to hold Simon to account they've made it clear his word means more than mine so that speaks volumes even if they claim they haven't taken sides. They've had Simon for tea every night for three months and never once picked up the phonw to me since the separation and asked if I'm ok and need help. So that tells me their choices. Simon wants to walk away from his responsibilities too, well that's his choice. Maybe it's easier if he's not involved in even paying their school fees, means I can choose their school allby myself and don't have to refer to him. If he wants them to go to a private Christian school then he can help pay for it, if he doesn't want to help pay for it then I don't have to send them there, do I? So maybe it just means I have even more freedom about my choices, a blessing in disguise’ (sic).
Section198B Hearings
  1. During the s 198B hearings, a number of witnesses including Matthew Patterson and Anna Terrington, Simon Patterson’s brother and sister, were cross examined about the positive relationships the accused had with Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson.
  2. At his s 198B hearing, Matthew Patterson was asked the following questions and gave the following answers in cross examination:
Q. After they'd separated, it appeared to you that Simon and Erin had anamicable relationship?

A. That's correct.

Q. Erin continued to be involved with and to attend the family events and functions?

A. Generally yes.

Q. And at those gatherings, after they'd separated, you always observed them to be respectful and amicable to each other?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, [Redacted], Erin's children, were very close to their grandparents?

A. Yes they were.

Q. Don was tutoring [Redacted]?

A. I'm not sure of that.

Q. But you observed Erin to be a devoted mother to [Redacted]?

A. Yes.

Q. Erin was connected to and had a positive relationship with your parents?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. And that continued even after her separation from Simon?

A. That's my understanding.

Q. In your opinion, Erin respected your parents?

A. Yes, I believe so.

Q. And was part of their daily or weekly lives?

A. I couldn't comment on the timeframe, but regularly enough.

Q. And you noted that your father and Erin had a special connection?

A. Ah well, a - a - a common ground, I would call it.

Q. And how would you describe that common ground?

A. They both were fairly academic and that meant that they um I think enjoyed the conversations at an academic level.

Q. So they found each other's - or having conversations with each other interesting and stimulating?

A. I believe so, yeah.
  1. At her s 198B hearing, Simon Patterson’s sister, Anna Terrington, was asked the following questions and gave the following answersin cross examination:
Q. So Erin and Simon have been separated now for a number of years?

A. Yes.

Q But after the separation Erin continued to be involved with and attend family events. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. The family communicated together on an application called Signal?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were part of that family chat and so was Erin?

A. Yes.

Q. And that continued even after the separation with Simon?

A. Yes.

Q. Erin and your parents to your observation maintained a good relationship after the separation?

A. Yes.

Q And your parents were very supportive of Erin?

A. Yes.

Q. There was to your observation no animosity between them at all?

A. No.

The accused’s police interview of 5 August2023
  1. Inher recorded police interview of 5 August 2023, the following passage appears:
Q 163. - - - You've described to me - and it's kinda come across at the start of this interview - it sounds like a frosty relationship with your ex-partner Simon, all right. I'd like to understand why you had his parents and his uncle and auntie over for lunch onthe 29th of July.

A. Because I've got no other family so they're the only support I've got - --

Q 164. O.K.

A. - - - left and they've always been really good to me - - -

Q 165. Yeah.

A. - - - and I want to maintain those relationships with them - - -

Q 166. Yeah.

A. - - - in spite of what's happened with Simon.

Q 167. Yep, O.K.

A. I love them a lot.

Q 168. Yeah.

A. They've always been really good to me, and they always said to me that they would support me with love and emotional support even though Simon andI were separated and I really appreciated that - - -

Q 169. Yeah, O.K.

A. - - - 'cause my parents are both gone.

Q 170. Yeah.

A. My sister's estranged. My grandparents are all gone. They're the only family that I've got.

Q 171. Yeah.

A. And they're the only grandparents that my children have and I want them tostay in my kids' life.

Q 172. Yep.

A. And that's really important to me. And I think Simon hated that I still had a relationship with his parents but I - I love them.

Q 173. Yeah.

A. Nothing that's ever happened between us – nothing he's ever done to me will change the fact that they're good decent people that have never done anything wrong by me ever.
Submissions
  1. The accused submitted the impugned evidence should be excluded under s 137.
  2. The accused submitted that some of the disparaging remarks made by the accused about Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Pattersonin the messages could inflame the jury. The accused submitted the messages could also mislead the jury as tothe true nature of he rrelationship with Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson. Moreover, the jury might treat the relationship evidence asevidenceof motive, even though the prosecution does not rely on it in thatway.
  1. The prosecution submitted the evidence is relevant as relationship and context evidence. It indicates the accused harboured resentment towards Simon Patterson,Don Patterson and Gail Patterson. It rebuts evidence that the prosecution anticipates the accused will adduce that the accused’s relationships with Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson were positive and, thus, she had amotive not to poison them.
  1. The impugned evidence seems to me to be of significant probative value with respect to Event 4, to which Simon Patterson was also invited but failed to attend. It demonstrates considerable resentment on the accused’s part towards Simon Patterson, Don Pattersonand Gail Patterson at a time proximate to Event 4. As occurred in thes 198B hearings with,for example, Simon Patterson’s brother Matthew and sister Anna, the accused will probably adduce evidence at trial from several of the prosecution’s witnesses of the accused having positive relationships with Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson : indeed, the accused emphasised her positive relationships with Don Patterson and Gail Patterson in her recorded police interview. The impugned evidenceis significant rebuttal evidence.
  2. The prosecution will not be submitting to the jury that the accused’s resentment towards Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson amounts toa motive for her to murder them. This minimises the risk of the jury overvaluing the evidence. If requested,I could give the jury directions reinforcing the pointthat the prosecutiononly relies on the relationship evidence for rebuttal purposes. Nor do I think the disparaging comments made by the accused about Simon Patterson, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson will inflame the jury. On the spectrum of inflammatory material ,this falls at the very bottom end of the spectrum, if at all. The jury can be expected to abide the standard direction not to decide the case based on sympathy or prejudice. I am not persuaded that the danger of unfair prejudice outweighs the probative value of the evidence.
[Redacted]
Background
  1. It is convenient to deal with [298] and [309] of the Summary of Prosecution Opening jointly. The Summary of Prosecution Opening states,relevantly (footnotesdeleted):
283. On 28 May 2022 at 7.20pm, two days after Simon Patterson was discharged from Mansfield Hospital and before he was taken to Casey Hospital by ambulance, the accused, using a computer which was later seized from her home, utilised the online search engine Bing to search for the term ‘inaturalist’,before navigating to the iNaturalist webpage. At 7.22pm, the accused navigated to a webpage on the iNaturalist site featuring a world map with geographic locations of death cap mushroom sightings. At 7.23pm,the accused navigated to a webpage on the iNaturalist website featuring a purported sighting of death cap mushrooms in Bricker Reserve,Moorabbin on 18 May 2022 (10 days prior) posted byuser ‘ivan-theaged’. A record of this search and website access was preserved in the computer’s data as various artifacts, namely: WindowsTimeline Activity artifacts, Parsed Search Queries artifacts,Edge/InternetExplorer 10-11 Daily/Weekly History artifacts, Edge/Internet Explorer MainHistory artifacts, Potential Browser Activityartifacts, Chrome Web Historyartifacts, a Chrome Shortcut artifact, Chrome Favicons artifacts, Chrome WebVisit artifacts, EdgeChromium Web History artifacts, Edge Chromium Web Visitsartifacts, IE InPrivate/Recovery URL artifacts, Chrome Cookies artifacts,EdgeChromium Cookie artifacts and Chrome Cache Records artifacts.

284. Simultaneously, at 7.23pm, the accused navigated to the website of the Korumburra Middle Pub via the Google search engine. She used the website to order a ‘family pack’ of food, to be delivered to the accused’s address of 46 Shellcot Road Korumburra. The accused’sphone number ending 783 and name were entered into the website using Chrome Autofill. The accused’spurchase was confirmed by the Korumburra Middle Hotel, who provided a receipt in the name of Erin Patterson for the purchase of meals and a bottle of soft drink, utilising the hotel’s online ordering provider,

285. The accused’s online activities on 28 May 2022, in navigating to the iNaturalist website and ordering food online fromthe Korumburra Middle Pub,were also captured as text documents from the AppCache data.

...

298. On 18 April 2023, Christine McKenzie, a now-retired pharmacist and Senior Poisons Information Specialist at the Victorian Poisons Information Centre, observed death cap mushrooms under some oak trees during a walk with her husbandand grandson in the regional township of Loch in eastern Victoria. She took a number of photographs and collected and disposed of every example that she could find. She did this as she knew how dangerous they were. Ms McKenzie had herdaughter put up a post on the Loch community Facebook page warning people about the presence of the mushrooms, as she knew there would be more growing within a few days. She also posted four photographs of this sighting to the iNaturalist webpage under her username ‘chrismck’, which geo-tagged the discovery location. The images posted by Ms McKenzie have since been positively identified by mycologist Dr Tom May as death cap mushrooms.

...

300. The accused had in fact purchased a Sunbeam Food Lab Electronic Dehydrator,model DT6000, from Hartley Wells Betta Home Livingin Leongatha at 12.17pm on28 April 2023. In the morning prior to this purchase, at around 9.00am, the accused’s mobile service data suggests that she travelled to and remained in the Loch area before returning to Korumburra.

...

302. [REDACTED]

303. [REDACTED]

...

309. On 21 May 2023 at 2.50pm, Dr May, using his iNaturalist profile‘Funkey Tom’ submitted an observation of death cap mushrooms along with a photograph and location of Neilsen Street, Outtrim, to the iNaturalist website. The location that he posted was within roughly 20 metres of the deathcap mushroom sighting made by Dr May.

310. On 22 May 2023, the accused’s mobile service data suggests that she travelled to and remained in the Loch area at around 10.00am before returning to Leongatha. Later that same day, the accused’s mobile service data suggests that (having travelled to Loch between 9 and 10am) she travelled from Leongatha to the Outtrim area at around 11.00am, before returning to Leongatha.
Submissions
  1. Th eaccused submitted it was speculation that the accused sighted the posts inquestion and therefore the impugned evidence was irrelevant.
  1. The prosecution submitted that the impugned evidence passes the test of relevance because it is part of the evidence of opportunity for the accused to have deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms locally.
  1. Thei mpugned evidence of the iNaturalist posts summarised in [298] and [309] of theSummary of Prosecution Opening is not to be consideredin isolation. In Ruling1, I noted that the evidence summarised at [283] to [285] of the Summary of Prosecution Opening was not objected to by the accused. In other words, there is admissible evidence from which a jury could infer that the accused was not only familiar with the iNaturalist website but knew how to utilise its worldwide map to find thelocations of death cap mushrooms locally. [REDACTED] In Ruling2, I ruled that cell tower evidence of the accused possibly visiting Loch twice (28 April 2023 and 22 May2023) and Outtrim once (22May 2023) was admissible. The possible visit to Lochon 28 April 2023 — 10 days after McKenzie’s post — was followed by the accused purchasing a Sunbeam food dehydrator on the same day. The possible visit to Outtrim on 22 May 2023 was a day after May’s post oniNaturalist. It is not in dispute that on 29 July 2023, the accused served her lunch guests Beef Wellingtons that were laced with death cap mushrooms. When these pieces of evidence are considered in combination, they pass the test of relevance because, at the very least, they are evidence of opportunity for the accused to have deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms locally,rather than having inadvertently purchased them from an Asian grocery, as she claimed to investigators. I note that a thorough investigation by the Health Departmentfound no support for that claim.
(g) SPO[327] – THE ACCUSED CHANGING SIM CARD FROM SAMSUNG TABLET TO PHONE B &NOT PUTTING OUT BINS ON 3 AUGUST 2023

Background
  1. The Summary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):
327. On Thursday 3 August 2023, the accused removed the SIM for number ending 835 from her Samsung tablet and placed it into ‘PHONE B’. No rubbish bins were placed outside the accused’s home in Gibson Street forcollection that day.
Submissions
  1. The accused submitted the evidence is irrelevant or, in the alternative, excluded bys 137.
  1. The prosecution submitted that the evidence about the SIM card is relevant as part of the accused’s alleged incriminating conduct in relation to her phones.The prosecution also submitted it is relevant to explain an absence of evidence,namely, the absence of evidence that the accused accessed posts on iNaturalist in April and May 2023 about sightings of death cap mushrooms in Loch and Outtrim. The prosecution submitted that the accused may have accessed those posts on the accused’s usual phone — PhoneA — which was never found by investigators.
  1. In relation to the SIM card, evidence of the accused setting up Phone B on 3 August 2023 is part of the course of conduct regarding the accused’s phones which the prosecution relies on as incriminating conduct. In Ruling 4, I ruled inrelation to items (k), (l), (m) & (q) that the accused could rely on that course of conduct as incriminating conduct. It follows that the evidence summarised in the first sentence of [327] of the Summary of ProsecutionOpening is relevant and admissible.
  2. In relation to the accused not putting out her rubbish bins, the prosecution relies on this omission as supporting the inference that the accused’s visit to and disposal of unknown items at the tip on 29 July 2023 shortly after the fatal lunch was unnecessary (because she had plenty of space in her bins at home) andamounts to incriminating conduct. In Ruling 4, I ruled that the visit to anddisposal of unknown items at the tip on 29 July 23 was inadmissible as incriminating conduct. Accordingly,the fact that the accused failed to put outher bins on 3 August 2023 is irrelevant and inadmissible.
(h) SPO[334] – THE ACCUSED ASKING TANYA PATTERSON TO CARE FOR HER CHILDREN

Background
  1. The Summary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):
334. On Monday 7 August 2023, the accused contacted Tanya Patterson [wife of Matthew Patterson] via email about the involvement of Child Protection with [Redacted], asking her if the children could be placed with her on an interimbasis.
Submissions
  1. Th eaccused submitted the evidence summarised in [334] of the Summary of Prosecution Opening is irrelevant. The accused was asking Tanya Patterson for help on 7August 2023 because of the prospect of protective services taking her children.The accused submitted this request is irrelevant to what happened on 31 July2023 when the accused left Leongatha Hospital against medical advice. Alternatively,the accused submitted that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfairprejudice.
  1. The prosecution submitted that this evidence is relevant to item (c) of the incriminating conduct relied on by the prosecution. On 31 July 2023, after the accused’s first presentation at Leongatha Hospital, the accused ignored strong medical advice thatshe remain at the hospital, saying she had to leave to, amongst other things, sort out things for her children. The prosecution submitted that Tanya Patterson was someone who had looked after theaccused’s children before when the accused had gone away on trips with Simon Patterson.The prosecution submitted that Tanya Patterson was someone the accused could have turned to on31 July 2023 to sort out things forher children and that the accused’s email to Tanya on 7 August 2023 confirms that.
  1. In Ruling 4, I ruled that the prosecution could rely on evidence of the accused leaving Leongatha Hospital against medical adviceas incriminating conduct. This evidence is relevant to that alleged incriminating conduct. It supports the inference, which is open, that she did not have a good reason to leave Leongatha Hospital against medical advice on 31 July 2023 because she had people she could call upon to help with the children, including Tanya Patterson. I do not consider that thereis any unfair prejudice associated with this evidence.None was identified bythe accused.
(i) SPO[336c & d] – PHOTOGRAPHS OF MUSHROOMS MATCHING THOSE POSTED BY THEACCUSED ON FACEBOOK IN MAY 2020

Background
  1. The Summary of Prosecution Opening states, relevantly (footnotes deleted):
275. On 5 May 2020, 18 months prior to Simon Patterson’s first illness,the accused, utilising her Facebook username ‘ErinErin’, posted anumber of pictures of a mushroom to a webpage titled, ‘Poisons Help;Emergency Identification For Mushrooms& Plants’. The accused posted a message alongside the photographs which read ‘My cat chewed on thismushroom just now. He is having a vomit. Was in grassland near trees. I’min Victoria Australia’. The photographs included in the post were later found on an SD card seized from the accused’s home, timestamped 5 May 2020. The accused has never owned a cat.

...

336. On 2 November 2023 at 8.00am, police executed a further search warrant atthe accused’s home address of 84 Gibson Street,Leongatha. Variousitems were seized, including:

...
c. An SD card located in the study (exhibit 130), which was later found to contain numerous photographs of mushrooms taken in 2020, including photographs of mushrooms in the accused’s house and photographs matching those posted to Facebook by the accused in May 2020;

d. A Samsung tablet located in the garage (exhibit 148), which was later found to contained images of mushrooms taken in 2020, as well as other material concerning poisons (described above).
Submissions
  1. The accused submitted that evidence that the accused had an interest in poisons is too vague to be relevant.
  1. The prosecution submitted that the photographs of the mushrooms, some of which are possibly mushrooms foraged in the wild, suppor tthe inference that the accused had a continuous state of mind, namely an interest in poisons.
  1. The photos were taken in 2020, some 2.5 to 3 years before the fatal lunch on 29 July2023. As with the evidence summarised at [275]of the Summary of Prosecution Opening, I regard the evidence as temporally remote and consequently irrelevant.
 
  • #60
Plus she couldn't face them in hospital or even check on them.
I found this particularly callous. And she was in the same medical centre as them when she first went to hospital, and still didn’t ask to see them. Just awful.

IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
49
Guests online
3,122
Total visitors
3,171

Forum statistics

Threads
632,593
Messages
18,628,845
Members
243,209
Latest member
ellabobballerina
Back
Top