Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates: Jury hears how Patterson loved and ‘respected’ her alleged victims as murder trial enters final days

Mr Mandy has now turned to the Asian grocer issue and why his client bought a dehydrator, before questioning the need to hide mushrooms in a paste.

He said Patterson had been in Glen Waverley and had previously visited Asian grocers, adding his client’s description of the mushroom packaging was correct.

Mr Mandy said Patterson often paid cash for items and she bought the dried mushrooms in April before storing them in a plastic container.

Mr Mandy also said his client ‘broadcast’ buying the dehydrator.

‘If the planning is to (dehydrate), for one meal, you don’t need to buy a dehydrator,’ he said.

Mr Mandy said she more likely bought the dehydrator as a hobby, arguing she could have dehydrated mushrooms for the one-off lunch in the oven at a low temperature.

Mr Mandy also asked why his client would need to hide mushrooms in a mushroom paste.

‘Why would you need to hide mushrooms in a mushroom paste?’ he said.

‘That theory we suggest to you doesn’t make any sense at all.’

Mr Mandy called it an implausible suggestion by the prosecution (prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers pictured).

The trial is on a break and will return at 2.15pm.

Mr Mandy has asked what would be the point of talking about cancer after Patterson’s guests had eaten the food served at the lunch.

He reminded the jury the conversation happened after Patterson and her guests had all eaten lunch.

‘If this was a ruse there was no need to have the conversation, because the deed … the consumption of food had already happened,’ Mr Mandy said.

‘On the Crown case her objective had already been achieved.’

Mr Mandy said the lie about cancer had ‘absolutely nothing to do’ with allegedly killing them.

‘There’s no point telling them the story after they’d eaten the food,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said the prosecution’s notion Patterson believed the lunch guests would take her cancer claim story to the grave was an ‘illogical and irrational theory’.

Mr Mandy said the only conclusion the jury could draw was Patterson lied about having cancer.

Mr Mandy has suggested the evidence of surviving guest pastor Ian Wilkinson (pictured right) and that of Patterson about what was discussed at the lunch was ‘was not far apart’.

Patterson told the jury she led her guests to believe she needed medical treatment.

But Patterson also admitted lying to her guests, telling the jury she was ’embarrassed’ about her weight issues.

Mr Mandy said Patterson said she had tried to communicate she was undergoing ‘investigations’ about ovarian cancer.

The jury was reminded Mr Wilkinson gave evidence that Patterson told them she had some sort of cancer.

Mr Wilkinson said they discussed a diagnostic test which showed a spot on the scan that indicated cancer.

‘Patterson wanted advice on how to tell the children,’ Mr Wilkinson previously told the jury.

However, Mr Mandy said Mr Wilkinson had earlier told police Patterson said she ‘suspected’ she had cancer and they didn’t discuss any type of treatment.

Mr Mandy went through Mr Wilkinson’s evidence again with the jury.

‘She named a type of cancer,’ Mr Mandy said Mr Wilkinson had said.

Mr Mandy said Patterson told the truth at the trial about what she had said and done at the lunch.

Mr Mandy told the court Patterson was often worried about her health while denying his client had a ‘sinister’ motive to get everyone to the lunch.

‘Obviously this worry [about her health] was without substance,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said a lump on her elbow resulted in concern for his client.

Patterson told the jury she told Don and Gail about the lump and they were concerned but as it healed, she maintained the lump was an issue because she wanted her in-laws’ care to continue.

Patterson admitted she was embarrassed about maintaining the lump issue.

Mr Mandy said everyone was happy to come to the lunch apart from Simon.

Asked why she held it, Mr Mandy said his client was worried about her relationship with her in-laws and wanted to be more pro-active to maintain contact with them.

Mr Mandy also dismissed Patterson had any sinister motive to invite her in-laws to the lunch.

He agreed she told lies at the lunch about her medical issues.

Mr Mandy told the jury again Patterson was not on trial for lying and urged the jury not to take a lie about her elbow and believe she was guilty of a triple murder.

Mr Mandy said Patterson had no malicious intent by telling the lie.

‘All she wanted was the continued love and care of Don and Gail,’ he said.

Mr Mandy dismissed suggestions the ‘ruse’ the prosecution alleged Patterson used to lure her guests to the lunch was to discuss her medical issues.

‘Only Simon gave that evidence,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said Patterson had a problem with self-image and her weight in April and May of 2023.

‘She had been binge eating and felt depressed,’ he said.

Mr Mandy said Patterson contacted the ENRICH Clinic which he told the jury dealt with liposuction at the time.

He told the jury she had an appointment booked.

Mr Mandy said Patterson believed the clinic offered gastric band surgery.

‘She was mistaken, honestly mistaken,’ he said.

The defence has argued there had been no animosity between Patterson (pictured) and her in-laws leading up to the lunch and there was no evidence to prove otherwise.

Mr Mandy said the prosecution could’ve called witnesses including Don and Gail’s children to say there was a frosty relationship between Patterson and her in-laws but they didn’t.

The jury also heard evidence could’ve been gleaned from multiple devices seized by police which belonged to Patterson, Simon, Don and Gail to prove the accused had an issue with her in-laws but it wasn’t presented.

‘There could be some evidence contradicting Erin’s position… but, it’s just not before you… there’s simply no evidence which contradicts the position we’re putting to you…,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said the prosecution had been selective in the messages they produced for the jury and failed to provide them in context.

He said people often showed a different side to themselves to different people.

Mr Mandy also addressed the eye rolling emojis in some of those messages.

The defence barrister suggested Patterson likely thought prayer wasn’t going to sort out her issues with Simon, as suggested by Don.

‘In the heat of the moment Erin might not have thought prayer [would fix the issue] or be pragmatic enough…,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy also said Patterson may have regretted sending those messages to her online friends.

‘Obviously, benefit of hindsight, she’s ashamed… she might’ve regretted [the messages] two seconds after sending them,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said the messages were being used by the prosecution to undermine Patterson’s ‘loving relationship’ with Don and Gail and he again attacked the Crown’s decision to offer the jury no motive for the alleged crimes.

The defence has dismissed the prosecution’s theory that Patterson was ‘duplicitous’ with her true feelings about Simon’s (pictured) family.

Mr Mandy said Patterson had a ‘minor blow-up’ with her in-laws, which the jury has seen in messages during the trial.

‘It’s not about very much at all,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said his client wasn’t rude or aggressive.

‘She was standing up for herself and she was being direct,’ he said.

Mr Mandy said the Crown suggested she had been living a duplicitous life but countered and said his client had simply talked it out with her in-laws while venting with online friends.

Mr Mandy said there was no other evidence that suggested Patterson hid her true feelings for the Pattersons.

‘It just didn’t happen,’ he said.

‘This was an aberration in her dealing with the Pattersons and there’s nothing to say otherwise.’

Mr Mandy said Patterson’s Facebook messages to online friends about her in-laws amounted to about 45 minutes of reading time among 600 pages of messages within that group.

Mr Mandy said the group was a ‘safe space’ for his client to talk freely about all kinds of issues.

‘It was a private conversation, it was an emotional release,’ he said.

Mr Mandy said it was a place to vent.

Mr Mandy is now addressing the jury about the tax return and school fees issues which occurred in late-2022.

The jury had previously heard Simon and Patterson’s relationship suffered some friction over those topics but Mr Mandy said those issues were resolved ‘amicably’.

The jury was then reminded about another dispute the couple had over the payment of their son’s medical fees.

Simon said he couldn’t pay due to advice he received from child support officials.

Mr Mandy said the dispute stood out because it was the only major spat the family had.

‘These people are eternally polite to each other…,’ Mr Mandy said.

‘That’s why it stood out…’

The jury heard Patterson and her in-laws had a relationship throughout 2022 until October of that year, when there was a misunderstanding about Gail’s 70th birthday, but Mr Mandy said ‘that was resolved’.

The incident occurred on October 15 and 16 and involved a spat between Patterson and Simon (pictured) because the accused ‘mistakenly’ believed she had been left off the invitation list for Gail’s 70th.

The jury previously heard Patterson had received a late invitation and she got into a heated argument with Simon but apologised the next day.

‘I’m sorry for shouting at you… I’d like not to do that again…,’ Patterson said.

Simon responded and apologised and said he wanted to be calm and listen better and also said he wouldn’t describe what happened between them as ‘shouting’.

‘She’s got the wrong end of the stick, and she’s apologised… it’s the opposite way a cold-blooded, calculated person would behave,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said it was not perfectly clear how long Patterson was on the iNaturalist site but suggested it could have been under two minutes.

Mr Mandy also said it was ‘idle curiosity just before ordering dinner’.

‘This was not a person carefully studying [death caps]… it was a passing attention,’ he said.

Mr Mandy said thousands of varieties of mushrooms grow in Victoria and not all had been identified.

‘Death caps have only been observed twice ever in South Gippsland,’ Mr Mandy said

The two posts were the sightings in Outtrim and Loch previously mentioned in evidence during the trial.

‘And never before since,’ Mr Mandy said.

‘On the Crown case, you might think remarkably, extraordinarily, Erin Patterson observed and acted on the only two death cap mushroom sightings ever… like she was sitting there waiting for them,’ he said.

Mr Mandy said Patterson ended up attending the party and the dispute was resolved.

Mr Mandy (pictured right) said just because Patterson landed on an iNaturalist page about a death cap sighting on May 28, 2022, doesn’t mean it’s linked to the lunch 14 months later.

He reminded the jury Patterson’s claim she was foraging is ‘her account’ and ‘you know she doesn’t have to prove anything’.

‘There is no way the prosecution is able to rebut that claim with this kind of evidence,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy also said the iNaturalist death cap search found on the Cooler Master PC was 14 months before the lunch.

‘It’s not suggested that activity had anything to do with planning that lunch… it’s very brief, it’s a matter of seconds…,’ Mr Mandy said.

‘The way you end up on a website varies [as you know if you use Google].’

Mr Mandy also said there was no evidence Patterson had previous knowledge of iNaturalist before the brief visit on May 28, 2022.

Mr Mandy said, at the time, the site contained no information on death caps in the Gippsland area.

Mr Mandy said his client likely checked the site to see if death caps grew in Gippsland.

‘Maybe she’d seen some mushrooms earlier that day,’ he said.

Mr Mandy said there is ‘little doubt’ that the death cap mushroom search found on the computer in Patterson’s (pictured) home was made, because his client ‘loved mushrooms’.

The jury heard Patterson ‘loved mushrooms’ and ‘loved eating them’.

‘It’s a fact, it’s evidence, it’s not made up,’ he said.

He said Patterson would ‘pick all kinds of mushrooms’.

He said when Patterson found a mushroom she didn’t know, she would try it and if it was okay ‘eat more of it’.

Mr Mandy also suggested Patterson was ‘not out in the wild foraging all the time’ but ‘did so on occasion’ when mushrooms were in season.

Mr Mandy said death caps were ‘notorious’ and ‘the deadliest mushroom in the world’.

He explained to the jury this is why his client would have looked up information on them.

‘On May 28, 2022 there is little doubt it was Erin Patterson looking up that information on the Cooler Master computer,’ he said.

Mr Mandy showed the jury photos of Patterson’s kids while they were with her as she picked mushrooms.

He said it was evidence Patterson had an interest in foraging at the time Dr May said other people had become more interested in the practice.

Mr Mandy said Patterson’s kids did their police interview on August 16, 2023 – three years after those photos were taken.

He told the jury it’s not hard to believe the children may not have remembered their mum picking mushrooms a couple years earlier because of the time gap.

Mr Mandy also said it was Covid, the kids weren’t at school, they may have wandered around during the walks and picking mushrooms may not have been memorable at the time as they are now.

Mr Mandy said Patterson became interested in mushrooms during the Covid lockdowns.

He said it was popular across the world, and it became more popular during the lockdowns, and this was backed up with the evidence of fungi expert Dr Tom May.

‘It’s not made up, it’s not fabricated, that’s the evidence,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy reminded the jury about the isolation Victorians felt during those lockdowns.

‘She photographed them, she picked them, she took them home,’ Mr Mandy said

The jury was again shown images of mushrooms purportedly taken by Patterson which had been found on an SD card at her home.

The jury heard there was no doubt Patterson had foraged.

‘Definitely a clear interest she had… it’s not fake, it’s not a lie,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy has reminded the jury of how close Patterson was with her estranged husband Simon’s family.

The trial has heard from multiple family members of the four lunch guests including Simon’s brother Matthew Patterson.

Matthew said Patterson had a ‘positive relationship’ with Don and Gail (pictured), and she ‘respected his parents’.

The jury also heard Patterson’s children loved their grandparents.

Mr Mandy has spoken highly of his client, and detailed to the jury she was a mother of two children.

‘She’s a person of good character,’ Mr Mandy said

‘Evidence is she always had a good relationship with Don and Gail … they treated her like a daughter.’

He reminded the jury about Patterson’s evidence in the witness box where she expressed her love for each of her lunch guests.

Mr Mandy said his client had wanted to move from Western Australia back to Victoria to be closer to Simon’s family, which she felt was her support network.

Mr Mandy said there was some confusion over Tanya Patterson’s evidence on what the accused did and didn’t know about the condition of her lunch guests.

He told the jury people were going out of their way not to share information with Patterson.

Patterson, who is wearing an olive-coloured jumper, listened as Mr Mandy questioned when she learned Don and Gail (pictured) were in comas.

Mr Mandy said the doctors didn’t tell Patterson Don and Gail were in comas.

‘So how was Erin going to find that out?’ Mr Mandy asked.

Mr Mandy suggested Patterson could have asked but also told the jury there was no evidence Don and Gail were in comas the day Tanya visited Erin at hospital on August 1.

‘Tanya Patterson may well have an honest but mistaken memory of that conversation,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy told the jury they wouldn’t know what they would have done in the same situation and added his client admitted to telling lies.

‘She’s not on trial for being a liar,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said nothing about what Patterson did after the lunch changed her intention for the meal.

He said a person who made four people unwell like his client might have had motive to tell lies.

‘Why tell people the leftovers existed at all?’ Mr Mandy said.

‘Why get rid of the meat… and keep the pastry and mushroom paste.’

Mr Mandy (pictured right) has continued his closing address to the jury and is talking about ‘hindsight reasoning’.

Mr Mandy said the Crown asked the jury ‘what would you do’ in the situation Patterson was in after the lunch.

‘We can’t change the past,’ he said.

‘Whatever Erin Patterson’s intention was when she served the meal is what it was.’

He suggested drawing hypothetical reasoning into the case was inappropriate.

Mr Mandy said it was an invitation to apply a moral judgement to what someone has done

‘It’s a distraction from the exercise you’re undertaking,’ he said.

Mr Mandy also told the jury it’s not the job of the defence to explain ‘hypothetical situations’.

‘Hindsight reasoning can create a false clarity about ambiguous situations,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said the intent may seem sinister if you look back and see what happened in the aftermath.

‘Even if the actual evidence of that intent is weak,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy on Tuesday moved to the topic of the leftovers and what Patterson ate during the lunch.

The defence barrister said the prosecution had to prove there was one ‘unpoisoned parcel’ but no unpoisoned beef Wellington portion was found in the leftovers.

Mr Mandy said there was no evidence Patterson ate all her Wellington.

He also described the Crown’s case as a ‘charade’ regarding what was found in the bin.

Mr Mandy told the jury the prosecution claimed there were ‘clearly two halves’ found in the bin.

But he said there was no evidence to suggest there were two halves in the bin because no one was asked about it.

Mr Mandy also claimed the Crown said Patterson was ‘forced’ to tell authorities the leftovers were in the bin.

‘It’s obviously not true,’ Mr Mandy said.

‘Here’s the pin code for my gate, help yourself [is what Patterson told police].’

Mr Mandy said his client was co-operative about where the leftovers were.

‘Without hesitation,’ he said.

‘This suggests at that time Ms Patterson did not know there was poison in them.’

Mr Mandy said a guilty person would have already thrown the leftovers out.

‘There had been two days to do all that instead of direct the police where (to find them),’ he said.

‘An innocent person would say “go grab them, help yourselves”, that’s what she did say.’

The trial will resume at 10.30am.

Mr Mandy has asked the jury to consider why Patterson would want to kill her lunch guests.

He said ‘any thoughts of rights or wrongs’ wasn’t evidence and to ‘put all that aside’.

‘As a judge, what’s in your heart has no relevance at all in considering the facts,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy urged the jury to rely on the evidence.

‘Why on earth would anyone want to kill these people?’ he asked.

‘Why would Erin Patterson want to kill them? Because of a brief period of tension in December of 2022?

‘Which had absolutely nothing to do with Ian and Heather (pictured).’

Mr Mandy said Patterson had ‘absolutely no reason at all’ to hurt Don and Gail either and there was ‘an absence of a motive’.

He suggested the Crown had tried to flesh out ‘some kind of reason’ for the crime.

Mr Mandy said an element of the crime was ‘intention’.

‘And they have to prove that’s what Erin Patterson meant to do,’ he said.

Mr Mandy (pictured) began his closing address to the jury on Tuesday afternoon.

‘Is there a reasonable possibility that death cap mushrooms were put into this meal accidentally?’ Mr Mandy asked the jury.

Mr Mandy said if the jury accepted Patterson also did not intend to kill her guests, they should acquit her.

He also described the prosecution’s case as ‘flawed’.

Mr Mandy said the prosecution had picked bits of evidence ‘they liked’ and glossed over other parts they didn’t like.

He told the jury the prosecution had ‘picked and chosen’ evidence and ‘constructed a case theory’.

‘Cherry picking convenient fragments,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said Patterson’s daughter claimed she went to the toilet ‘at least 10 times’.

‘That’s not a vague recollection,’ Mr Mandy said

‘Yet the prosecution says dismiss that because she doesn’t have any memory of going to Tyabb in the car.’

Dr Rogers told the jury yesterday it was ‘in the best possible position’ to determine the issues in this case which they should regard as a ‘jigsaw puzzle’.

‘And as the pieces were put together, the picture starts to become clear,’ she said.

Dr Rogers (pictured) argued the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt Patterson was guilty.

‘You must not feel sorry for the accused in the position she’s facing these criminal charges,’ she said.

‘You might not understand it.’

Dr Rogers argued there was no reasonable alternative than that Patterson deliberately killed her lunch guests.

‘She’s told lies upon lies because she knew the truth would implicate her,’ she said.

Dr Rogers said Patterson’s ‘fifth deception’ was to the jury itself.

The prosecutor said Patterson constructed a narrative in the witness box.

Dr Rogers also pointed to the fact that she claimed even her own children were wrong and listed all the key elements she claimed pointed to Patterson’s guilt.

She said the jury should be satisfied Patterson intended to kill each of her lunch guests.

Lead defence barrister Colin Mandy SC commenced his closing address to the jury in the Erin Patterson murder trial on Tuesday afternoon.

Mr Mandy called the prosecution’s case ‘flawed’ and even labelled some aspects of the case a ‘fantasy’.

Crown prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers wrapped up her closing address to the jury just before lunch yesterday.

Justice Christopher Beale has indicated he will commence his ‘charge’ to the jury after Mr Mandy has concluded his closing address.

Justice Beale already indicated to the jury his final instructions will go for several days.

The closings followed Patterson who entered the witness box for her eighth and final day in her own marathon murder trial last Thursday.

Patterson has been a big drawcard with dozens of members of the public braving the cold to queue up outside (pictured) the courthouse very early each morning to get a front row seat in the courtroom.

Patterson, 50, is accused of murdering her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, after allegedly serving them a beef Wellington lunch made with death cap mushrooms.

Patterson is also accused of attempting to murder Heather’s husband, pastor Ian Wilkinson, who survived the lunch after spending several weeks in an intensive care unit.

The court heard Patterson’s estranged husband, Simon, was also invited to the gathering at her home in Leongatha, in Victoria’s Gippsland region, but didn’t attend.

Witnesses told the jury that Patterson ate her serving from a smaller, differently-coloured plate to those of her guests, who ate off four grey plates.

Patterson told authorities she bought dried mushrooms from an unnamed Asian store in the Monash area of Melbourne, but health inspectors could find no evidence of this.