Alleged mushroom cook didn’t ingest death caps, ‘no record’ she had cancer, jury told: Trial day one, as it happened

That concludes our live blog for today, thanks for reading.

Erin Patterson’s trial will continue on Thursday with the first of the witnesses to give evidence.

Follow day two of the Erin Patterson trial here. 

Defence counsel Colin Mandy, SC, has finished his opening response to the jury.

Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale has once again reminded the 15-person jury that the opening addresses from both parties are not evidence.

He has now dismissed the jurors for the day.

Defence counsel Colin Mandy, SC, said Erin Patterson did not feign her illness in the aftermath of the lunch, but that she was unwell because she had eaten some of the meal.

“Prosecution says, ‘Well, she got rid of the dehydrator that makes her look guilty’. She admits that. She admits that when she was interviewed by the police on the same day that one of the lunch guests died, she lied about getting rid of the dehydrator,” Mandy told the jury.

Mandy said Erin had lied to the police about foraging for mushrooms.

“She admits that she did forage for mushrooms. Just so that we make that clear, she denies that she ever deliberately sought out death cap mushrooms,” the barrister said.

Mandy ended his address with a reminder to the jurors to keep an open mind about the evidence they would hear.

“In the end, this decision in this trial won’t be ... up to any of us, it’ll be up to you,” he told them.

The jury needed to consider the media and health scrutiny in the days following the lunch and how that affected Erin Patterson’s behaviour, her defence counsel said.

“Might someone panic in a situation like that? Is it possible that people might do and say things that are not well thought out and might, in the end, make them look bad?” Colin Mandy, SC, said to the jury as he responded to the prosecutor’s opening address.

“Is it possible that a person might lie when they find out that people are seriously ill because of the food that they’ve served up?

“Those are important issues in this case, and you’ll need to use your common experience and your common sense, your experience of human nature and human beings and how they behave, and your common sense to analyse those issues and in doing so, you must be careful not to jump to conclusions.”

Erin Patterson is seated in the dock crying and looking at the courtroom ceiling as her defence barrister addresses the jury.

The accused woman cried as defence counsel Colin Mandy, SC, spoke about her two children, who were close to their grandparents, who were among those who died after the lunch.

Credit: Jason South

Mandy told the jury there was evidence that would come out during the trial that was not in dispute, including where Erin lived, that she was a devoted mother, comfortable financially, generous to the wider Patterson family, that she had had a disagreement with former husband Simon over child support, and that she had never been diagnosed with cancer.

“The defence case is that she panicked because these four people had become so ill because of the food that she had served to them,” Mandy said.

“Three people died because of the food that Erin Patterson served that day. So you’ll need to think about this issue, how Erin Patterson felt about that in the days that followed. That’s an issue in this trial, you’ll need to consider how she behaved and what she did in that important context.”

Defence counsel Colin Mandy, SC, said there was no dispute three people had died.

“This case is all about Erin Patterson’s intention. It’s about what she meant to do, what she intended to do. Did she intend to kill these four people?” Mandy told the jury.

Erin Patterson.Credit: Jason South

He said the defence case was that the deaths were a tragedy and a terrible accident.

“The defence case is that Erin Patterson did not deliberately serve poisoned food to her guests at that lunch on the 29th of July, 2023. She didn’t do it deliberately. She didn’t do it intentionally. The defence case is that she didn’t intend to cause anyone any harm on that day.”

Mandy asked the jury to return to the fundamental issue of Erin’s intention and her potential motive for killing her extended family as the jurors listened to the evidence.

“She’s innocent, innocent until proven guilty. You’ve heard that phrase before, I’m sure. But it’s not something that people say. It’s a fundamental principle and protects all of us. It’s the law,” Mandy said.
“So at the moment, these charges are just allegations.”

Prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC, has finished her opening address to the jury, and Erin Patterson’s defence lawyer, Colin Mandy, SC, has started delivering his response.

Mandy began by reminding the jury that the prosecutor’s address wasn’t “actual evidence”.

Colin Mandy, SC (second from right), and his defence team colleagues outside court on Wednesday.Credit: Jason South

“What Dr Rogers has said to you isn’t evidence. It’s just the way the prosecution expects that the evidence will unfold. The actual evidence is what you will hear in this courtroom during the course of the trial, mostly from witnesses and sometimes through argument, through exhibits, that kind of thing,” Mandy said.

He also reminded the jury that the defence team’s response would be limited at this stage.

“The law is, we can’t have an argument,” Mandy said. “Now, you might think that that makes a lot of sense, if you think about it, because it would be pointless now for the prosecution and the defence to start arguing about what the evidence is, what it might mean, before you’ve had an opportunity to hear any of it for yourselves.”

Erin Patterson’s two children will give pre-recorded evidence to the trial, the jury has been told.

The jurors would also hear from a number of other witnesses, and be shown photographs, CCTV footage, diagrams, maps, and PowerPoint slides, prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC, said.

Rogers told the jury: “Keep an open mind, no prejudice or sympathy, please, towards either the accused or any of the prosecution witnesses, or indeed any of the lunch guests. Your role is to be impartial and to make a decision at the end on the evidence that you have heard and seen on this trial.”

Prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC, has told the jury her legal team does not need to prove a motive for the alleged crimes.

“Now, why would the accused do this? What is the motive?” Rogers said towards the end of her opening address.

“Motive is not something that has to be proven by the prosecution. You do not have to be satisfied what the motive was, or even that there was one, the prosecution will not be suggesting that there was a particular motive to do what she did.

“What you will have to focus on and focus your attention on is whether you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the charges on the indictment, not why she may have done so.”

The jury is now being told about the forensic evidence in the case.

Prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC, said fingerprints found in the dehydrator matched those on Erin Patterson’s left hand. An analysis of the leftover beef Wellington taken from Erin’s bin, and vegetable matter taken from the dehydrator – discovered at the tip – also found signs of death cap mushrooms.

Prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC.Credit: Jason South

Rogers said death cap mushroom toxins were detected in urine samples taken from Don Patterson and Ian Wilkinson in hospital. No toxins were detected in the biological samples taken from Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson, but Gail’s autopsy findings were compatible with pathology typically seen from ingesting death cap mushrooms, and in Heather’s case, the acute liver failure that contributed to her death was compatible with the consumption of death cap mushrooms.

“It is the prosecution case that the accused deliberately poisoned with murderous intent each of Ian Wilkinson, Heather Wilkinson, Gail Patterson and Donald Patterson on 29 July [2023] at her house in Leongatha after inviting them for lunch on the pretense that she’d been diagnosed with cancer, and needed advice about how to break it to the children,” Rogers told the jury.

Rogers said it was also the prosecution case that Erin did not consume death cap mushrooms at the lunch and “pretended she was suffering the same type of illness as the lunch guests to cover that up”.

Erin was reluctant to have her children medically assessed because she knew that, like her, they had not eaten any poisoned food, Rogers said.

“The accused lied about getting death cap mushrooms from an Asian grocer. And the accused disposed of the dehydrator which contained death cap mushroom remnants to conceal what she had done,” the prosecutor said.