‘Not a court of … moral judgement’: Erin Patterson regrets lies she told before and after deadly lunch, jury told

Accused triple murderer Erin Patterson may have lied about some things but it doesn’t mean she planned to kill her estranged husband’s relatives with poison mushrooms, her legal team claims.

Erin Patterson and her estranged husband Simon Patterson. Picture: NewsWire

Erin Patterson may be a liar, but she is no triple murderer, her defence barrister has declared as he reminded a Supreme Court jury his client was “not on trial for lying”.

Top silk Colin Mandy SC tried to forensically pick apart the prosecution case on Wednesday as he continued to deliver his closing address.

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 death caps at her Leongatha home on July 29, 2023.

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

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.

An artist’s impression of accused mushroom cook killer Erin Patterson in the Supreme Court. Picture: Anita Lester

Mr Mandy told the jury Ms Patterson regrets the lies she told before and after the lunch, including about her health, but it did not mean her intention was to kill her estranged husband’s relatives.

“She’s not on trial for lying,” he said.

“This is not a court of … moral judgement.

“You shouldn’t take the leap from this lie about a lump on her elbow to finding her guilty of triple murder. Those two things are a very, very long way apart.”

Mr Mandy said there were “several accounts” about what Ms Patterson said at the table about her health, but described them as “not that far apart”.

Ms Patterson admitted she misled the guests by making them believe she was “undergoing investigations” in relation to ovarian cancer and “might be needing some treatment”.

Ian also testified that he understood Ms Patterson was in the “diagnostic phase”.

But Mr Mandy argued that she did not tell the guests she had a “definitive cancer diagnosis”.

He said misleading the guests about her health was “easier” than telling them she was a binge eater exploring weight-loss surgery.

Mr Mandy also argued that if the cancer story was a “ruse” to get the guests to the lunch, she would not have told them after they had eaten their poisoned beef wellingtons.

Defence barrister Colin Mandy SC. Picture: David Crosling

He told the jury it would have been “very important” for his client, on the prosecution case, to not “lose track” of her un-poisoned beef wellington when putting it in the oven.

“We submit to you there is only one logical way of getting around that problem … and that would be to mark the un-poisoned one,” he said.

“In which case, you would not need different coloured plates.”

He said Ian had to be “wrong” about what he said about the four grey plates for the guests and a smaller, orangey-tan plate for the host.

“It makes no sense logically that you would use that method to deliver up an un-poisoned parcel,” he said, describing Ian as “honestly mistaken”.

He reminded the jury Simon said she did not have a “matching set of plates”, their son said he remembered the plates being “plain white” and Ms Patterson said she used two black, two white and one black/red plate.

He said it was likely there were “at least three different coloured plates”.

Earlier, Mr Mandy said Ms Patterson heard about “notorious” death caps when she started to forage during Covid lockdowns and visited citizen science website iNaturalist in May 2022 because she wanted “make sure” they did not grow in Gippsland.

The jury heard no sightings of death caps in Gippsland had been posted to iNaturalist until two popped up in April and May 2023.

Mr Mandy said the prosecution was “remarkably” alleging that Ms Patterson was “sitting there, waiting for them”.

Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC. Picture: David Crosling

He pretended to refresh a website, repeatedly tapping on the court lectern with his finger.

“Ah!” he exclaimed, acting out the allegation that his client stumbled across the first sighting.

“How likely is that?” he asked.

He said it was “more likely” death caps were also growing elsewhere in Gippsland, including the areas Ms Patterson visited on her walks.

Mr Mandy’s closing address will continue on Thursday.

The trial, before Justice Christopher Beale, continues.

Originally published as ‘Not a court of … moral judgement’: Erin Patterson regrets lies she told before and after deadly lunch, jury told