Erin Patterson trial: Screen time at mushroom cook’s home as jury deliberates after 40 days and 40 nights

The jury in the mushrooms murder trial will wake on Tuesday to deliberate on Erin Patterson’s guilt or innocence over three murder charges and one of attempted murder.

Clockwise from main: Erin Patterson’s home; Ms Patterson and Ian Wilkinson.

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

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

After 40 days and 40 nights, the jury in the mushrooms murder trial will wake on Tuesday to deliberate on Erin Patterson’s guilt or innocence over three murder charges and one of attempted murder, as a new network of privacy screens was erected at her ­Leongatha compound.

Seven men and five women were chosen on Monday as the final make-up of the jury in one of the highest-profile criminal cases in the past 25 years.

The court has heard that Ms Patterson put death cap mushrooms in a beef Wellington but the defence and the accused have said it was unintentional on the day she invited her husband’s relatives to lunch on July 29, 2023.

Victorian Supreme Court judge Christopher Beale on ­Monday delivered clear warnings to the jury about maintaining discipline during their deliberations, as two male members were balloted off the panel.

The ballot was to bring down the panel to 12 people, who must reach a unanimous decision if Ms Patterson is to be convicted or cleared.

New photographs show that black screens have been built covering parts of Ms Patterson’s carport and entry to her South Gippsland house but it is unknown who has been responsible for the privacy provisions at her home or if anyone is living there.

The screens would allow someone to pull up in the carport and be given privacy as they walk towards the main door.

If she is freed, Ms Patterson will have to travel 60km southwest from Morwell to Leongatha, which is 135km, southeast of Melbourne.

The jury must decide whether the Crown has proven beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Patterson murdered her former parents-in-law Don and Gail Patterson, both 70, and her estranged husband Simon’s aunt, Heather Wilkinson, 66.

Justice Beale finished his charge in Morwell at lunch-time on his fifth day; the charge leads to the judge’s instructions about the relevant law and how it should be applied by the jury.

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

Justice Beale 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 about 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 would mean 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 added: “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 case had been heard in the Latrobe Valley town of Morwell, sitting as the Supreme Court, attracting global interest.

The court has heard that Ms Patterson lied about not having foraged for mushrooms and owning a dehydrator.

The court also has heard that Ms Patterson has suffered from body image issues and had eaten two-thirds of an orange cake brought to the lunch by Gail Patterson. The accused told the court she had then thrown up.

The prosecution was 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 was 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, he added: “The question is not why she did it. The question is ‘are you satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she did it’.”