Three questions, three denials: Erin Patterson’s final words in the witness box in mushroom murder trial

Accused triple murderer Erin Patterson faced a grilling from the prosecution on her final day in the witness box — and now it’s down to the prosecution and defence to make their cases to the jury deciding her fate.

Mushroom cook Erin Patterson denied three accusations at the heart of the prosecution case against her before the evidence in her marathon triple-murder trial drew to a close.

The defence closed its case on Thursday after the accused spent her eighth and final day in the witness box, marking the end of the evidence the Supreme Court jury will hear.

Ms Patterson is standing trial in Morwell, accused of murdering her estranged husband’s parents Don and Gail Patterson, both 70, along with Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson, 66.

The prosecution alleges she served them individual beef wellingtons she had deliberately laced with lethal death cap mushrooms at her Leongatha home on July 29, 2023.

Heather’s husband, pastor Ian Wilkinson, 71, was the only guest to survive.

Ian Wilkinson leaves court during a lunch break. Picture: Ian Currie

Ms Patterson, 50, has pleaded not guilty to three counts of murder and one of attempted murder, claiming she may have accidentally added foraged mushrooms into the meal with dried mushrooms she purchased from an Asian grocer.

Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC declared at the end of her cross-examination on Thursday that she had three final questions.

In quick succession, Dr Rogers asked: “I suggest you deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms in 2023, agree or disagree?”

“I suggest you deliberately included them in the beef wellington you served Donald Patterson, Gail Patterson, Ian Wilkinson and Heather Wilkinson, agree or disagree?

“And you did so intending to kill them, agree or disagree?”

Each time, Ms Patterson replied: “Disagree.”

Accused mushroom cook killer Erin Patterson. Picture: David Crosling

Earlier, Dr Rogers questioned her evidence that she dehydrated the dried mushrooms because they appeared “rubbery”.

“I suggest this is another lie that you’ve made up on the spot,” Dr Rogers said.

“I suggest you’re hedging your bets, trying to make it sound like there are multiple possible sources for the death cap mushrooms.”

“Incorrect,” she replied.

Dr Rogers also asked Ms Patterson about Phone A, which was never located, Phone B, which she handed to police during the search of her house on August 5, and Phone C.

Ms Patterson said she bought Phone A in February 2023, but denied she used the device to research death caps or look up death cap sightings on citizen science website iNaturalist.

She also denied deliberately “concealing” Phone A from police.

Ms Patterson told the jury last week Phone A had a damaged screen and she also wanted to change her number to prevent her husband from contacting her.

This was why, she said, she set up Phone B with another SIM card in early August.

But Dr Rogers suggested that there was nothing wrong with Phone A and accused Ms Patterson of moving the SIM card from Phone A to Phone C when she was privately calling a lawyer as police searched her house.

Dr Rogers also suggested that Ms Patterson then handed Phone B to police because she knew there was no data on the device.

Crown Prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers. Picture: Ian Currie

She denied these accusations, having previously testified that since Phone A and Phone C were not seized by police, she moved the SIM card from one to the other when she returned home from her record of interview.

She claimed that Phone A was left on a window sill, untouched by police.

Dr Rogers suggested that claim was “nonsense”, but she disagreed.

However, she admitted conducting factory resets of Phone B, having testified that she “panicked” and did not want police to find photos of mushrooms and the dehydrator.

“I suggest you did this so you could then pass off Phone B as your usual phone without police realising,” Dr Rogers asked.

“Disagree,” Ms Patterson replied.

During re-examination, defence barrister Colin Mandy SC took his client to her evidence about the ENRICH Clinic, where she said she had booked an appointment to explore gastric bypass surgery.

But the jury heard the clinic does not and has never offered the procedure.

However, Ms Patterson said at the time of making the booking she was “of the understanding” they offered services such as gastric bypass surgery and/or liposuction.

“My understanding was they could discuss my needs and what would best suit me,” she said.

After her re-examination concluded, Mr Mandy closed the defence case.

Justice Christopher Beale told the jury he would need to have “legal discussions” with the parties before closing addresses could commence.

The trial continues.

Originally published as Three questions, three denials: Erin Patterson’s final words in the witness box in mushroom murder trial