7 key issues jury must decide in mushroom murder trial

Erin Patterson’s fate now rests in the hands of 12 members of the public. These are the key issues those jurors have been asked to decide.

• Inside the jury room where her fate will be decided

Twelve jurors in the high-profile trial of Erin Patterson started their deliberations on Monday, with the group to decide the mushroom cook’s fate.

The seven men and five women sat through 40 days of the trial and will determine if she is guilty or not guilty of three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder over the beef wellington lunch she served on July 29, 2023.

To find her guilty of murder, the jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Patterson deliberately included death cap mushrooms in the beef wellingtons she served her lunch guests and did so with the intention to kill or cause really serious injury.

But for attempted murder, the jury must be satisfied that she did so with nothing less than an intention to kill.

Before the jurors retired, Justice Christopher Beale summarised several key issues they would also need to decide before reaching their verdicts.

Seven key issues the jury must decide:

1. Whether she had “good reasons” not to kill her lunch guests;

2. Whether she foraged for edible mushrooms;

3. Why she cooked individual beef wellingtons;

4. Why the children were not at the lunch;

5. Whether she had a different plate to her guests;

6. Whether she allocated her own plate; and

7. Whether she engaged in incriminating conduct after the lunch.

What is the prosecution case?

The prosecution alleges that Ms Patterson served her lunch guests individual beef wellingtons she had deliberately laced with death caps.

In its closing address, the prosecution claimed Ms Patterson made “four calculated deceptions” before and after the lunch.

It alleges she fabricated a cancer claim, disguised lethal doses of poison as beef wellingtons, attempted to make it seem like she also suffered death cap mushroom poisoning and embarked on a “sustained cover-up”.

What is the defence case?

The defence claims what happened was a “tragedy and a terrible accident”.

Ms Patterson, who testified in her own defence, said mushrooms she innocently foraged and dehydrated in May or June may have ended up in a container with dried mushrooms she purchased from an Asian grocer in April.

She said she tipped the contents of this container into the mushroom duxelles for the beef wellingtons, believe at the time it only contained the dried mushrooms from the Asian grocer.

In its closing address, the defence listed four “ridiculous” propositions alleged by the prosecution, including that a mother of two would commit murder and “blow up” her entire life “without any motive”.

Originally published as 7 key issues jury must decide in mushroom murder trial