Former homicide detective Charlie Bezzina reveals how police will probe the mushroom death lunch

How the host of the lethal mushroom lunch felt about her former in-laws will be probed by police, amid reports they may have not have wanted her to reconcile with their son, says a veteran cop.

A veteran former homicide cop says that Erin Patterson’s ‘chopping and changing’ statements don’t necessarily point to guilt. Picture: Brooke Grebert-Craig

A veteran former homicide squad investigator believes police will, at best, likely only be able to mount a circumstantial case against the host of Leongatha’s deadly mushroom lunch, Erin Patterson, that would not see her convicted if it went before a jury.

Charlie Bezzina told the Herald Sun that while there appeared to be many inconsistencies in what Erin Patterson had told police and had been reported so far, “her chopping and changing”, didn’t necessarily make her a killer.

Nor did the fact she didn’t become as unwell as her guests after allegedly eating the same beef wellington dish as her former in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, who both died, and Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson, who also died after the July 29 meal.

Heather’s Baptist pastor husband, Ian Wilkinson, remains in a critical but stable condition in Melbourne’s Austin hospital, awaiting a liver transplant.

Police would be questioning not just Ms Patterson but also her ex-husband, Simon, her two children, extended family members and searching her phone and internet search history and downloads for any clues to explain how the lunch unfolded, Mr Bezzina said.

The retired senior homicide detective spoke to the Herald Sun about the possible outcomes of the investigation on a hypothetical basis, and the Herald Sun does not suggest Ms Patterson intended to poison her guests.

Detectives would also be looking closely at any links and associations Ms Patterson had to clubs and groups — both formal and informal — whether she had a romantic relationship brewing with anybody, and whether she had anything financially, or otherwise, to gain from her in-laws’ deaths, Mr Bezzina said.

That could include whether she perceived her former in-laws as standing in the way of a potential reconciliation with her ex-husband.

“That goes to motive — even though we don’t have to prove motive — but it’s not a point of proof,” he said.

Former Victorian homicide detective Charlie Bezzina. Picture: James Ross

“You would look at the history of the family situation to see if there was any animosity … is her motive that ‘they need to be removed so that I can reconcile with Simon again?’ Does that make her a killer, show motive and the reason for her poisoning them?

“Why would someone want to poison them in that way? Did she expect deaths or did she just expect illness but death resulted, which was an unintended consequence? You don’t know what was in her mind,” Mr Bezzina said.

Police would be “champing at the bit” to speak to the sole surviving guest of the lunch, Ian Wilkinson, if and when he woke, he added.

Meanwhile, every statement Ms Patterson had made so far — from the disposal of the food dehydrator to the purchase of the mushrooms from an Asian grocery shop in Mt Waverley — would be chased down and investigated thoroughly by detectives.

“They will basically be driven by the comments that she’s making, even though they are ever changing,” Mr Bezzina said.

“It’s really a matter of going through what will negate or support her … probably ending up with a circumstantial case.”

Simon Patterson’s allegation that he believed his ex-wife may have tried to poison him previously would definitely be examined rigorously by police.

“To see that course of conduct — it’s either to inculpate her further criminally or exculpate her,” he said.

Simon Patterson, the ex-husband of Erin Patterson. Picture: Facebook

Erin Patterson outside her home. Picture: Brooke Grebert-Craig.

Also of interest to police would be why the children went to the movies on the day of the lunch, as had been claimed by Ms Patterson, and if that was a normal thing for them to do.

“There’s basically four options for the police — it’s either going to be a murder, manslaughter, intentionally or recklessly causing serious injury or an accident. So based on all that, there are different levels of proof that are needed,” Mr Bezzina said.

“It may well be a case where … because she lied, does that make her a killer?

“Because she did certain things and she can’t remember which Asian shop she went to, does that make her a killer? Is that enough for police to charge her?

“There’s a long way to go but it’s a matter of chasing every rabbit down its burrow, and responding to any comments that she’s made to either prove that’s a lie, a course of conduct and show some criminality one way or the other.”

The final toxicology reports from Ms Patterson’s lunch guests would likely hold the biggest key to the case, he said.

However, if it was confirmed they had consumed death caps mushrooms at the lunch, as the hospital originally suspected, it still may not be enough to lay a charge against the cook, Ms Patterson, Mr Bezzina said.

The final toxicology reports from Ms Patterson’s lunch guests will likely hold the biggest key to the case, Mr Bezzina says.

“That gives us a specific cause of death but to serve people up a meal of mushrooms is not a crime,” he said.

“It’s how you then prove the intent, knowing that they were poisoned, knowing the consequences, and on it goes.

“My gut is they’ll go through all that, they’ll end up with a circumstantial brief of evidence … and if it doesn’t get any better than that — even with all the inconsistencies — is that enough that a jury would convict? I would say no.”