Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial: Jury retires for formal deliberations

The jury has begun formal deliberations to decide whether Erin Patterson is guilty or not guilty of murdering her estranged husband’s relatives with a toxic beef Wellington.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

The jury in Erin Patterson’s triple-murder trial has begun formal deliberations to determine whether she is guilty or not guilty of using a poisonous beef Wellington containing death cap mushrooms to intentionally kill her estranged husband’s relatives.

The 12 jury members will be sequestered during the deliberation period at accomodation nearby the Latrobe Valley law courts, 150km east of Melbourne. Each day, they will be transported to the court to discuss the evidence and try to reach a decision.

“Your verdict of guilty or not guilty in relation to the charge must be unanimous,” Victorian Supreme Court judge Christopher Beale told the jury. “The agreed decision of you all.”

A ballot on Monday afternoon decided which 12 jurors – of the remaining 14 – would decide the final verdict. The two remaining jurors were thanked for their time and left the court immediately.

When the members have reached a decision, Justice Beale said, they must press a buzzer in the jury room to alert the court tipstaff.

“You will deliberate Monday’s to Saturday’s here at the court in the privacy of the jury room,” Justice Beale instructed the jury. “You will not deliberate on Sunday’s, but you will still be sequestered. You do not get to go home on Sunday’s, I’m sorry.”

Jury members on Monday had brought luggage to the court in preparation for the sequestration period, Justice Beale said. It is not known how long the jury will take to return a verdict.

The jury must determine whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt Ms Patterson had murdered her in-laws, Donald and Gail Patterson, and Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson at the July 29, 2023 lunch, Justice Beale said.

Ms Patterson has also been charged with the attempted murder of Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson, who survived the meal and has watched from the gallery for much of the trial.

Ms Patterson has pleaded not guilty. While she accepts death cap mushrooms were contained in the meal, she says she never intended to harm anyone.

Justice Beale, earlier on Monday, gave directions to the jury regarding alleged “credit” lies of Ms Patterson, including that she allegedly lied about wanting to undergo gastric bypass surgery, about having an ovarian cancer diagnosis and the reason for inviting her guests to lunch.

“If you find the accused lied about something you can use that fact to decide whether or not you believe the other things she’s said,” Justice Beale said.

He said the jury should not decide that because Ms Patterson may have lied about one thing, that means “she lied about everything else”.

“It’s one factor to take into account,” he said. “It’s for you to decide what significance to give these alleged lies, if you find them to be lies.”

Justice Beale told the jury they should consider the evidence in this case as a “jigsaw puzzle”. “When putting all the pieces together you must be careful not to jump to conclusions,” he said.

He said: “If there is another reasonable view of the facts which is consistent with the accused’s evidence then the prosecution has not proven her guilt beyond reasonable doubt and you must acquit her.”

The prosecution is not required to prove she had a motive to kill her estranged husband’s relatives, Justice Beale said.

But, he said, the absence of evidence of a motive is still a relative consideration when determining whether she deliberately fed them a toxic beef Wellington laced with death cap mushrooms at a fatal lunch at her home.

“For some murders there may be evidence of motive, but some murders occur for no apparent reason,” he told the jury. “The motives of such murders might only ever be known to the accused.”

He said the Crown had not officially proposed a motive for the alleged crimes, but had pointed to tension between Ms Patterson, her estranged husband Simon Patterson and his parents Don and Gail Patterson.

The defence, Justice Beale said, had argued there was “evidence of a motive not to kill” including that her alleged victims were her relatives by marriage, were “good people” and Don and Gail Patterson were her children’s only grandparents.

“That does not mean the absence of evidence of a motive to kill is irrelevant,” he said.

“It is a relevant consideration which you must take into account in the accused’s favour when weighing all the evidence in this case.

“Moreover if you find the accused had good reasons not to kill or attempt to kill her lunch guests – in short she had a motive not to commit the alleged offences – that is a significant consideration.”

Later, Justice Beale added: “The question is not why she did it. The question is are you satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she did it.”