Erin Patterson murder trial day 35 as it happened: Accused mushroom cook’s defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, finishes closing statement, reminds jury the ‘standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt’

Here’s a recap of the key moments from court today:

• Seats were empty for the first time in courtroom four at Latrobe Valley Law Courts in Morwell.
• Defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, resumed and concluded his closing statement.
• Mandy said Patterson’s behaviour at Leongatha Hospital in 2023 was consistent with her behaviour during a 2015 occurrence of gastro symptoms. Patterson did not refuse treatment. There were “practical considerations” she needed to attend to before she was admitted.
• Mandy said the prosecution provided “a misleading impression of the evidence” regarding the toxins in the meal. He said other possibilities could not be ruled out, including that the amatoxins in the mushrooms were not absorbed into the meat at all.
• He referred to “three things that can’t be faked” in Patterson’s medical tests to support her evidence that she had diarrhoea and might have been dehydrated.
• Mandy argued health and council officials may have been “honestly mistaken” over the suburban location of the Asian grocery where Patterson claimed to have bought dried mushrooms.
• The defence said Erin Patterson asked after her in-laws’ health and was kept out of the loop.
• Mandy said there were all sorts of reasons why an innocent person might have lied or dumped the dehydrator: “She did those things because she panicked when confronted by the terrible realisation that her actions had caused the illnesses of the people that she loved.”
• He pointed out that Patterson decided to give evidence, even though she didn’t have to, thereby exposing herself to great scrutiny.
• He told the jurors that if they think Patterson’s evidence is true, they must find her not guilty. If they are not sure but think it might be true, then they have a reasonable doubt and should find her not guilty. “It’s not a question of balancing two things,” he said.
• Mandy argued the prosecution forced the evidence to fit their theories and ignored alternative explanations. He said they had worked backwards, picking and choosing, and using hindsight to reconstruct events to manufacture a picture of what happened.
• “If you think there’s a possibility this was an accident, a reasonable possibility, you must find her not guilty. And if you think there’s a reasonable possibility that her evidence was true, you must find her not guilty,” Mandy said. “The standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
• The jury will return to court on Tuesday.

Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale tells the jury to keep an open mind after hearing the closing arguments from the prosecution and the defence in the triple-murder trial of accused mushroom cook Erin Patterson.

“It’s more important than ever that you have a good weekend,” he said.

“I really want you to come back refreshed on Tuesday, and that’s not a threat,” Beale continued, causing the jury to laugh.

“Thank you, your honour,” one juror replied.

Defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, says there is no motive for Erin Patterson to do what she is accused of doing. He told the jury there was instead “18 years of anti-motive evidence”.

Mandy discounted the prosecution’s theory that Patterson had used her cancer lie to get the guests to attend the lunch, arguing she only disclosed it after they had already eaten the beef Wellington. “This proposition of taking secrets to the grave is absurd,” he said.

He said the evidence often had multiple, reasonable interpretations, and argued that the evidence that fits the prosecution’s case might also fit an innocent explanation.

Prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC, outside court on June 17.Credit: Jason South

Mandy accused the prosecution of forcing the evidence to fit their theory and ignoring alternative explanations.

“You can’t fill any gaps with speculation … you can only act on the evidence, because you’re judges,” Mandy told the jury.

“The standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

Mandy said the prosecution had worked backwards, picking and choosing and relying on misleading impressions, and using hindsight to reconstruct events to manufacture a picture of what happened. “That’s what happened here. They started at the end and worked backwards.”

Mandy said the prosecution assumed Patterson was guilty from the start and picked the pieces that fit that narrative.

“Does an absence of motive make it more likely that this was an accident? Was it more likely that she wanted to kill everyone, or reconnect with everyone for the sake of her children?” Mandy asked.

Erin Patterson’s legal team outside court on June 19.Credit: Jason South

Mandy said the jury’s starting point was that Patterson was innocent – and it was for the prosecution to disprove her account beyond reasonable doubt.

“If you think there’s a possibility this was an accident, a reasonable possibility, you must find her not guilty. And if you think there’s a reasonable possibility that her evidence was true, you must find her not guilty,” Mandy said.

“Thank you very much for your attention, ladies and gentlemen.”

This concludes the defence’s closing statement.

Defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, said accused mushroom killer Erin Patterson decided to give evidence during the trial, even though she did not have to, thereby exposing herself to great scrutiny.

“She made that decision as an innocent person. As she is right now and has been throughout the trial: presumed innocent,” Mandy said.

He pointed out that Patterson answered questions truthfully, even if the truth was embarrassing for her.

A court sketch of Erin Patterson during her trial.Credit: Anita Lester

“What more could she do? She exposed herself and her account to cross-examination,” Mandy said.

The defence barrister said cross-examination is designed to test the accounts of witnesses to see if they are accurate and honest.

“She went through that unscathed,” Mandy said, adding that her account remained consistent.

He told the jurors that if they think Patterson’s evidence is true, they must find her not guilty. If they are not sure but think it might be true, then they have a reasonable doubt and should find her not guilty.

“It’s not a question of balancing two things,” he said.

Mandy said that, finally, even if the jury did not believe critical aspects of Patterson’s evidence, it did not mean they should find her guilty. They should consider whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, has resumed his closing address. He points the jury to evidence from phone tower expert Dr Matthew Sorell about possible visits by accused mushroom killer Erin Patterson to Loch and Outtrim, where death cap mushrooms had reportedly been sighted. He also discussed the limitations of Sorell’s evidence.

He warned the jurors to be careful with that evidence and to consider potential alternative explanations.

Erin Patterson’s legal team outside court on June 19.Credit: Jason South

“Consider the alternatives that Dr Sorell agrees are open in the evidence and cannot be excluded,” Mandy said.

The defence lawyer went on to say that Sorell’s analysis did not take into account the travel times between Patterson’s house in Leongatha and those locations. He said there were many legitimate reasons for someone who lives in the area to be nearby.

Defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, said the fact that accused mushroom cook Erin Patterson continued to use phone A after the beef Wellington lunch was consistent with Patterson’s version of events that she was planning on changing her phone.

“Phone A was damaged, and that’s the reason why she stopped using it,” he said.

Mandy said Patterson could not have removed the SIM card from the phone covertly while police were searching her home on August 5, 2023. The only time Patterson could have done that would have been when she was allowed to use it to make arrangements for her children and a lawyer, but that would have been “a feat”, Mandy said.

Phone evidence given by the prosecuction regarding a missing phone that was never found

PHONE 1: Samsung Galaxy – called the “A23” phone – found in son’s bedroom cupboard during August 5, 2023 search warrant.

PHONE 2: Samsung Galaxy – called “Phone A” – seen with Erin Patterson in footage taken from CCTV cameras at Leongatha Hospital. Pink case. Never found.

PHONE 3: Samsung Galaxy – called “Phone B” – physically handed to police during a search warrant on August 5, 2023. Orange/red case.

PHONE 4: Nokia smartphone. The SIM card from “Phone A” was allegedly put into this phone during the house raid on August 5, 2023 – at 1.45pm – and used afterwards. 

“The stupid thing she did was factory-reset phone B a couple of times. Entirely consistent with someone who panicked for no good reason at all, because there’s nothing to be achieved by factory resetting phone B.”

Mandy ended his address before breaking for lunch by telling the jury there was “no rule of human behaviour” that Patterson engaged in after the lunch that “is only engaged in if you believe she is guilty of murder”.

The defence barrister said there were all sorts of reasons why an innocent person might engage in that kind of conduct, including dumping the dehydrator and lying.

“Erin got into the witness box and told you she did those things because she panicked when confronted by the terrible realisation that her actions had caused the illnesses of the people that she loved,” Mandy said.

Mandy will continue his closing address at 2.15pm.

Defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, now takes the jury to a series of text messages between Erin Patterson and her estranged husband Simon Patterson on the morning of Tuesday, August 1, 2023 – three days after the beef Wellington lunch.

Mandy said that in the text exchange, Erin mentioned her potassium levels and asked Simon if he could bring the children around. She told him her sister-in-law, Tanya Patterson, was going to visit her.

Mandy said Simon and Erin stopped communicating at that time over text message.

Tanya Patterson outside court on June 16.Credit: Jason South

“Once the comment is made about the dehydrator, that’s when the wheel starts turning, that afternoon,” Mandy said.

Mandy said that at that point, Erin Patterson knew death cap mushrooms were the likely culprit and started suspecting foraged mushrooms “went into the meal”. He said Patterson’s actions after the fatal lunch were motivated by the fact that she knew if that was found out, she would be held responsible.

“Nothing can actually change what her intention was at the time of the lunch. Either she had the intention or she didn’t,” Mandy said.

“You can’t change the past because you behave badly in the future.”

Defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, now takes the jury to the prosecution’s argument that accused mushroom cook Erin Patterson did not ask about her in-laws’ health when she spoke to her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, on the phone the day after the lunch.

He reminded the jury that Erin Patterson testified earlier in the trial that she had discussed them with Simon during that call on Sunday: “That’s how I found out that they were in hospital. This was a conversation about them being unwell,” she said in the witness box.

The implication that the prosecution wants the jury to draw, said Mandy, is that Patterson talked about her own symptoms instead.

“That’s not a fair conclusion to take from that evidence,” Mandy said.

He said the reason why Simon called Erin was to tell her that Don and Gail were unwell. “Erin was at pains to explain that the conversation had lasted minutes. That’s what they were talking about.”

The defence barrister reminded the jury of Simon’s evidence that he told Erin that Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson were “crook”, and that Erin told him she had diarrhoea.

“It was three questions and answers,” Mandy said.

Mandy said that “apparently those three questions and answers” permitted the prosecution to say that Erin Patterson went on to talk about herself and her symptoms.

Don Patterson, Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson died after ingesting poisonous mushrooms. Ian Wilkinson (right) survived after spending months in hospital.

The first thing Erin Patterson did when she saw her sister-in-law, Tanya Patterson, at the hospital on Tuesday morning after the lunch, Mandy said, was to ask how everyone else was faring. The barrister said it was clear by Tuesday afternoon that Erin Patterson was being treated as responsible.

“Whichever way you looked at it, it was her fault,” Mandy said. He argued she was being isolated and kept out of the loop.

The lunch guests were all getting the best medical treatment possible and “nothing Erin Patterson did or said was going to make any difference at all,” Mandy said. In fact, from the early hours of Monday, July 31, 2023, before Patterson arrived at the hospital, the lunch guests were already being treated for death cap mushroom poisoning.

Accused mushroom cook Erin Patterson told medical staff and public health officials that she bought dried mushrooms from an Asian grocery store in the south-east suburbs of Melbourne. Defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, tells the jury Patterson never told anyone she was certain which suburb the Asian grocery store was in.

Mandy said that Troy-Anthony Schonknecht, a Monash City Council health officer who visited Asian grocery stores as part of a Department of Health investigation, was never asked to check Glen Waverley.

“That was the end of the investigation,” Mandy said.

Mandy said Schonknecht was never told about the possibility of Glen Waverley, despite evidence from Department of Health manager Sally Ann Atkinson that she had done so. He said this was another example of people in the trial who were “honestly mistaken”.

“One of them is honestly mistaken,” Mandy said.

Defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, said accused mushroom cook Erin Patterson’s symptoms had not subsided without medical intervention – that’s why she went to the hospital and was given a drip and anti-nausea medication.

“What [prosecutor] Dr Rogers said to you is that the reason for every sign and symptom that was observed by medical practitioners ... was explained by stress.

“Stress because of panic.”

Barristers Sophie Stafford and Colin Mandy, SC, arrive at court this morning.Credit: Jason South

He said this was an unfair characterisation by Rogers because it undermined the evidence of prosecution witness Professor Andrew Bersten, who said Patterson’s elevated fibrinogen levels could be consistent with acute illness and stress.

The barrister said the ICU expert’s evidence was that stress can include physical stress that arises from surgery or diarrhoea – “not simply panic”.

Mandy said something was going on in Patterson’s body at the time, and three things were captured by medical tests: low potassium, elevated haemoglobin and elevated fibrinogen.

“Three things that can’t be faked,” Mandy said.

Mandy said Bersten’s evidence was that Patterson’s reports about diarrhoea, physical examinations at different times, fluid balance charts, and elevated test levels combined to support Patterson’s evidence that she had diarrhoea and might have been dehydrated.

The barrister said another scientific conclusion that the Crown’s case relied on was that a person will become seriously ill no matter the amount of amatoxins consumed.

“Why wasn’t anyone asked that question?” said Mandy.