Australia mushroom trial live: Erin Patterson ‘argeted her search’ for death caps, prosecutor says
Patterson deliberately sought out death caps, prosecutor says
Rogers says Patterson deliberately sought out death cap mushrooms.
“She knew exactly what she was looking for and she targeted her search accordingly,” she says.
Rogers says the defence will probably argue that Patterson had a good relationship with her lunch guests. She reminds the jury that they do not need to know why someone did something to know that they did it.
Rogers tells the jury not to become distracted by the issue of a lack of motive.
“The question is not why she did this. The question you have to determine is has the prosecution determined, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused did this deliberately?,” she says.
Key events
Rogers says what Patterson “outwardly” portrayed did not always align with her “true feelings”.
She says Simon gave evidence that when he told her his parents were in hospital the day after the lunch Patterson never asked about them.
If Patterson loved her in-laws she would have immediately asked about their welfare, Rogers says.
Relationship with in-laws not always ‘harmonious’
Rogers turns to Patterson’s relationship with her parents-in-law.
She says Patterson’s estranged husband, Simon Patterson, told the jury Patterson seemed to love his parents.
“On the surface it seemed that way, even to the family members themselves,” Rogers says.
But she says the jury has heard evidence Patterson’s relationship with her in-laws, Don and Gail, was not always “harmonious”.
She reminds the jury about evidence regarding Patterson and Simon’s dispute over child support payments. She says Simon and Patterson’s son described his parents’ relationship as negative before the lunch.
Rogers says Patterson expressed her real feelings about her parents in-law and the broader family with her online friends.
She says in messages from December 2022, seen by the jury, Patterson called her parents-in-law a “lost cause”.
Patterson deliberately sought out death caps, prosecutor says
Rogers says Patterson deliberately sought out death cap mushrooms.
“She knew exactly what she was looking for and she targeted her search accordingly,” she says.
Rogers says the defence will probably argue that Patterson had a good relationship with her lunch guests. She reminds the jury that they do not need to know why someone did something to know that they did it.
Rogers tells the jury not to become distracted by the issue of a lack of motive.
“The question is not why she did this. The question you have to determine is has the prosecution determined, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused did this deliberately?,” she says.
‘Was the accused really a mushroom forager?’
Rogers says she expects the defence will argue the jury cannot exclude the possibility that Patterson “innocently” foraged for wild mushrooms and accidentally picked death cap mushrooms.
“Was the accused really a mushroom forager between 2020 and 2023 as she claimed to you?,” Rogers asks rhetorically.
She says the only evidence about this “comes from her own evidence”.
“None of the immediate family members you heard from in this trial … knew the accused to pick or eat wild mushrooms.”
Rogers says Patterson’s two children were unaware of her foraging despite living with her during this period.
“The accused never discussed foraging for mushrooms with her online friends … even though they discussed absolutely everything.”
Patterson gave police ‘dummy phone’ and lied about number, Rogers says
Rogers reminds the jury about the evidence about four factory resets conducted on Phone B.
She says Phone B, which Patterson handed to police, was a “dummy phone”, with the sim card only inserted into it two days before police searched her home
“This was not her usual phone number,” she says.
“We say she lied about her phone number in the police interview.”
Rogers says the multiple factory resets, handing over a “dummy” phone and claiming she had a different phone number was “designed to frustrate the police investigation of this matter”.
“It was all done so police would never see the contents of the accused’s mobile phone,” she says.
Rogers says the only reasonable explanation for this deceptive content is that Patterson knew the contents on phone A would implicate her in the deaths of the lunch guess.
“This is another example of incriminating conduct,” Rogers says.
Patterson’s mobile phones
Rogers turns to evidence about Patterson’s mobile phones.
She says Patterson had a change in handset at the beginning of February. She continued to use this phone – Phone A – until after the lunch.
“This is what the prosecution says is the accused’s usual mobile phone,” Rogers says.
She says Phone A was still in use up to and while police were searching Patterson’s house on 5 August 2023.
Rogers reminds the jury the agreed fact that at an unknown time between 12.01pm and 1.45pm on this day Patterson’s original phone number – previously used for Phone A – “lost connection with the network”.
Rogers says this could be due to:
A. The sim card being removed
B. The battery being removed without the handset being off
C. The handset being damaged
Rogers says for any of these three things to occur someone – “and we say the accused” – must have been handling the mobile phone.
She reminds the jury that to this day police have never located Phone A.
‘She wanted to hide the evidence,’ prosecutor says
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC is continuing to deliver her closing address.
She says the day after Patterson was discharged from Monash hospital in August 2023 she drove to a local tip, Koonwarra Transfer Station And Landfill, and dumped the food dehydrator because she “knew it would incriminate her”.
She says the only reason Patterson did this was to cover up the deadly meal.
“She wanted to hide the evidence,” Rogers says.
“This is another example of incriminating conduct.
“She knew that keeping it would be far too risky.”
Rogers says that if police had not discovered the transaction from the tip then Patterson’s disposal of the dehydrator would not have come to light.
“Erin Patterson certainly wasn’t telling anybody about it,” she says.
Rogers says Patterson lied to police when asked if she owned a dehydrator in the formal interview.
The jurors have returned to the court room in Morwell.
What the jury heard yesterday
Here’s a recap of the what jury heard on Monday:
-
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC told the jury Erin Patterson made “four calculated deceptions”. She said these were fabricating a cancer claim as a reason to host the lunch, secreting a lethal dose of poison in the beef wellingtons, her attempts to pretend she was also sick, and a sustained cover-up to “conceal the truth” after the lunch.
-
Patterson did not think she would be questioned about her cancer claim because she believed her “lie would die with them [her lunch guests]”, Rogers said.
-
Rogers told the jury to reject Patterson’s evidence that there were no grey plates she served the beef wellingtons on. She said Ian Wilkinson, the sole surviving lunch guest, was a “compelling witness” and recalled four grey plates. He said Patterson ate off an orange-tan coloured plate.
-
Not one medical professional who saw Patterson said she looked unwell, Rogers told the jury.
-
Patterson’s initial reluctance to have her children medically tested, after she told medical staff she fed them leftovers of the fatal meal, was because she knew they had not consumed death cap mushrooms, Rogers said.
Good morning
Welcome to day 33 of Erin Patterson’s triple murder trial.
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC will continue delivering her closing address to jurors this morning. Patterson’s defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, will then address the jury.
We’re expecting the trial to resume from 10.30am.
Patterson, 50, faces three charges of murder and one charge of attempted murder relating to a beef wellington lunch she served at her house in Leongatha, in regional Victoria, on 29 July 2023.
She is accused of murdering her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and her estranged husband’s aunt, Heather Wilkinson. The attempted murder charge relates to Heather’s husband, Ian.
She has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The prosecution alleges Patterson deliberately poisoned her lunch guests with “murderous intent”, but her lawyers say the poisoning was a tragic accident.
