Thank God the jury didn’t let a monster walk free

Erin Patterson isn’t just a spur of the moment killer. Artwork: Sean Callinan

2 min read

5:29PMAugust 08, 2025

Ooooh, lucky.

Lucky the jury of 12 men and women convicted Erin Patterson.

Because if they had acquitted her, the jurors would now have to live with the fact they let a monster go free.

The material the jury wasn’t allowed to see during the trial has now been released and it is devastating.

Multiple prior grave illnesses suffered by her husband, Simon Patterson, after consuming food she cooked for him. A bout of paralysis where he hovered close to death. Desperate suffering through major gastrointestinal surgery.

Simon Patterson lost part of his bowel to one suspected poisoning attempt.

And Erin’s crazed story, spun on social media; a fantasy about feeding death cap mushrooms to an entirely imaginary cat.

This is the evidence the trial lacked; the pattern of alleged behaviour that sweeps aside any shred of doubt.

Once you hear it, there’s no doubt.

Erin Patterson isn’t just a spur-of-the-moment killer.

She planned, practised and executed her crime with the ice-cold discipline of the domestic violence perpetrator she is.

What the jury never heard: Erin Patterson Mushroom Trial

Her motive – to harm Simon, who was slipping out of her coercive control – is clear.

She tried to poison him again and again. She created a special lunch at which his whole family would be present, and when he didn’t show up, she killed them instead.

It is fair to assume that the 12 men and women in that jury room deliberated very carefully about their verdicts.

They spent seven days, including a full weekend, locked up away from their families in a motel, and for six of those days – at least six hours a day – they deliberated.

It wasn’t an easy conclusion.

In Australia, unlike some other jurisdictions, it’s illegal to solicit a juror to tell his or her story, so we’ll likely never know why the verdicts took so long.

But what we do know is that Erin Patterson had an outstanding defence counsel in Colin Mandy, SC.

Mandy and his team successfully got this material excluded from the trial.

In the case of the ‘cat post’, Mandy successfully argued the police didn’t have an original download of the post; they only had a replica; a screenshot taken by someone else, which could have been manipulated or edited.

Remember, Erin Patterson’s primary mobile phone has never been found by police, and it’s now clear why: it contained the proof of her premeditation.

Until the eve of the murder trial, Erin Patterson was charged with multiple accounts of attempted murder relating to those prior attempts to poison Simon.

But those charges were dropped, and Simon wasn’t permitted to tell the jury about his deep suspicion that his wife was trying to kill him.

Well, you might say, if they had acquitted her, surely the Crown could have appealed – had another crack at it?

No.

In criminal matters, the Crown gets one shot. Once a jury returns a verdict of not guilty, the rules say another attempt would be ‘double jeopardy’; grossly unfair.

There are exceptions in various jurisdictions if the Crown can come up with ‘fresh and compelling’ evidence that wasn’t before the jury.

But in a matter like this, an acquittal would have been the end of the road.

It would also have been a stomach-churning miscarriage of justice.

Claire Harvey is host of The Australian’s daily news podcast The Front. Hear it now wherever you listen to podcasts.

Claire HarveyEditorial Director

Claire Harvey hosts The Australian's daily news podcast The Front and is executive producer of our suite of podcasts. She has worked as a reporter, foreign correspondent, deputy editor and columnist across 30 years in journalism.

@chmharvey

Claire Harvey

Thank God the jury didn’t let a monster walk free

Mushroom Murders