Defence says ‘there is no reason at all’ for Erin Patterson to kill lunch guests

A lawyer for alleged triple-murderer Erin Patterson says there is ‘no reason at all’ for her to murder her estranged husband’s relatives with a poisoned beef Wellington.

A courtroom sketch of Erin Patterson. ‘Why would Erin Patterson want to kill them or cause them serious harm?’ her defence counsel has asked.

Leongatha mushroom cook Erin Patterson had no motive to murder her estranged husband’s relatives with a poisoned beef Wellington, her defence counsel has said, arguing that the jury should not convict her unless the members were convinced she had an “intention to kill”.

Colin Mandy SC said Ms Patterson’s alleged victims – her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson and her husband Ian Wilkinson – were “good, decent people” who had “never been anything but kind and understanding” to her.

“Why on earth would anyone want to kill these four people, or cause them really serious injury or cause them any harm at all?” he said.

Defence barrister Colin Mandy SC arrives at Latrobe Valley Law Courts. Picture: NewsWire/ David Crosling

Ms Patterson has been charged in Victoria with the murders of the Pattersons and Heather Wilkinson after allegedly deliberately serving them a beef Wellington laced with death cap mushrooms at a lunch in her home on July 29, 2023.

She has also been charged with the attempted murder of Mr Wilkinson, who survived the lunch and watched from the gallery as Mr Mandy commenced summing up the defence case on Tuesday.

Ms Patterson has pleaded not guilty. The trial is being held at the Latrobe Valley Law Courts.

Mr Mandy told the Supreme Court jury in there was “not hatred, or anything remotely approaching that” between Ms Patterson and her alleged victims prior to the lunch.

He said Ms Patterson had a “brief spat” with her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, and his parents over child support in December 2022, which was “resolved amicably”.

“Why would Erin Patterson want to kill them or cause them ­­serious harm?” he said. “Because of a brief period of tension in December of 2022? Which had absolutely nothing to do with Ian and Heather?”

He continued: “The prosecution want to try and show that there was some kind of difficulty in the relationship between Erin and Simon and that, therefore, might provide a reason for her to murder his parents and his aunt and uncle six months later, seven months later.”

“Even just saying it aloud demonstrates, in our submission to you, how unpersuasive that argument is,” he said.

The prosecution is not required to prove motive but must show Ms Patterson had an intention to kill, Mr Mandy said.

He told the jury on Tuesday not only was there no evidence of a motive, there was “positive evidence of a lack of motive”.

Ms Patterson put her estranged husband on the title of two homes she owned “long after they separated”, he said. There was a “closeness” between Ms Patterson and Don Patterson, he said, telling the jury the pair shared a “special connection”.

“Erin Patterson had a motive to keep these people in her world so they would keep supporting her and her children, especially her children,” he said. “Why would she take wonderful, active, loving grandparents away from her own children?”

While the prosecution argued Ms Patterson had been long-­planning to murder her alleged victims, Mr Mandy said she had acted in ways contrary to a killer.

“If she had been thinking that way and planning this from April, here are some things she would never do: buy the dehydrator in her own name with her own details using her own credit card from a local store; take photographs of the dehydrator; take photographs of the mushrooms in the dehydrator, share those photographs online, publish them with people in a Facebook chat, and then wait for so long after the meal before getting rid of the dehydrator,” he said.

Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers. Picture: NewsWire / David Geraghty

“But Erin Patterson did the opposite of all those things because she didn’t plan it; she never planned to kill anyone, and when they did get very, very sick, she panicked, because that’s when she ­realised that it might have been the meal and the spotlight would be on her.”

Earlier on Tuesday, senior crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC called on the jury to consider how they would act if they learned a beef Wellington meal they had prepared, eaten and served to their children had caused four elderly guests to fall critically ill.

Ms Patterson accepts death cap mushrooms were served in the meal, but says it was a terrible accident and she never meant to harm anyone.

She has admitted to dumping a dehydrator she owned and telling some lies to authorities because she feared she would be blamed for her guests falling sick.

“Think about what you would do in this situation if this were just a horrible accident,” Dr Rogers said. “Would you go into self-­preservation mode, just worrying about protecting yourself from blame? Would you race away from hospital and do who knows what for 1.5 hours? Would you be reluctant to receive treatment?”

Dr Rogers suggested the jury would “tell the medical practitioners ever skerrick of information that might help identify the cause of the illness ... regardless of any risk of blame that might fall on you”.

She said the jury would “move mountains” to get their children to hospital, if they had “come within a coo-ee” of a poisonous meal.

Dr Rogers on Tuesday suggested Ms Patterson led a “duplicitous life” where she pretended to love the family of her estranged husband but towards whom she truly felt “resentment and anger”.

She said Ms Patterson “mocked” the Patterson family for their religious beliefs to her online friends, despite attending church with them.

Dr Rogers also told the court Ms Patterson had told “so many lies, it’s hard to keep track of them”.

Mr Mandy will continue his closing address on Wednesday.