Patterson thought ‘her lie would die with them’, Rogers says
Rogers says Patterson made “bald-faced lies” to her in-laws about her medical appointments.
“She knew how to tell convincing lies when it came to the cancer because she had put in the research,” she says.
“The prosecution says the accused put considerable thought and effort into this fake cancer claim and she deliberately set the trail in motion with Don and Gail.”
Rogers says Patterson agreed in court that she had never been diagnosed with cancer.
Rogers says Patterson did not think she would be questioned about her cancer lie because she intended to kill her lunch guests.
“Her lie would die with them.”
Key events
The day after the lunch
Rogers turns to the evidence about Sunday 30 July 2023 – the day after the lunch.
Rogers says Patterson’s son testified that his mother insisted on driving him to his flying lesson that day despite her claiming to be experiencing recurrent diarrhoea.
They drove for an hour and five minutes before the instructor called to cancel the lesson, Rogers says.
Patterson told the jury during the journey she pulled over on the highway and relieved herself in a bush. But her son did not refer to “any such stop occurring”, Rogers says.
She says Patterson’s son was in the front passenger seat and if his mother had to pull over to go to the toilet it is something he would recall.
Rogers reminds the jury of CCTV they have seen from Patterson stopping at a service station during this trip and entering the bathroom for 9 seconds.
Patterson testified that she entered the bathroom to dispose of the tissues she used to clean herself up.
“If she really did have diarrhoea in the bush … it would take more than nine seconds of cleaning herself up or at a minimum to wash her hands,” Rogers says.
She says the jury should reject Patterson’s evidence that she entered the bathroom because she had diarrhoea on the side of the road.
Prosecution says jury should ‘reject any suggestion’ Patterson suffered death cap mushroom poisoning
Rogers turns to what she says is Patterson’s deception about pretending she also became ill after the lunch.
She says when the jury interrogates the evidence about Patterson after the lunch they should “reject any suggestion she suffered even a mild version of death cap mushroom poisoning”.
Rogers says Patterson “deliberately and falsely” represented to relatives and medical professionals that she was “very unwell as a result of the lunch”
“The only reason she would do something like that … is because she knew she had not been poisoned, knew she was not going to exhibit symptoms of poisoning and knew how suspicious this would look to everyone.”
Simon said Patterson told him she became unwell early in the evening on the day of the lunch. Rogers says the lunch guests first began reporting symptoms around midnight on the evening of the lunch.
Different plate used to ‘identify the sole non-poisonous meal’, Rogers says
Patterson never told her guests they would be eating wild mushrooms, Rogers says.
She says it is “striking” that she served her lunch guests’ meals on one plate and herself on another plate.
She reminds the jury that Ian Wilkinson said there were four, large grey plates which the guests ate from. Wilkinson said Patterson ate from a smaller orange-coloured plate.
“Ian Wilkinson was a compelling witness who was able to recall a substantial amount of detail about the lunch,” Rogers says.
She says the jury can “confidently accept” what Wilkinson told them about the lunch, including the plate details.
Rogers says Simon testified that Heather Wilkinson mentioned the odd plates twice the day after the lunch.
“This was clearly something that stuck in Heather’s mind. It was noteworthy,” she says.
Rogers says the jury should reject Patterson’s evidence that she served the lunch on a series of mismatched plates and that she “just happened” to eat from a different coloured plate.
She reminds the jury that Wilkinson testified that Patterson picked up and carried the different coloured plate to her place at the table.
Erin Patterson served herself on a different plate to “identify the sole non-poisonous meal”, Rogers says.
“Erin Patterson took steps to ensure she herself did not accidentally consume death cap mushroom while ensuring that her guests did.”
‘Four calculated deceptions at heart of case’
Earlier, Rogers told the jury that there were “four calculated deceptions” made by Patterson that were “at the heart of the case”:
1. That Patterson “fabricated” a cancer claim as the reason for the lunch.
2. Lethal doses of poison “secreted” in beef wellingtons she served her guests.
3. Patterson’s attempts to make it seem like she also suffered from death cap mushroom poisoning.
4. A sustained cover-up by Patterson to “conceal the truth” after the lunch.
Rogers says the phone location data showed the connections from Patterson’s phone to base stations in Outtrim and Loch were “outliers”.
“Visiting these areas was not something that the accused normally did,” Rogers says.
She says these were not part of Patterson’s “normal activities”.
Rogers says the death cap mushroom sighting posts on iNaturalist showed the toxic fungi was growing in Loch and Outtrim in the months before the lunch.
It also shows they were made public with location data, Rogers says.
Rogers turns to the evidence about Patterson’s phone location data.
She says telecommunications expert Dr Matthew Sorell could only conclude there was a possible visit to Loch on 18 April 2023. But Rogers says the jury should consider the phone location evidence in conjunction with other evidence. She says this includes the fact that Patterson purchased a dehydrator on the same day.
Rogers says there is further evidence that on 22 May 2023 Patterson’s phone was “stationary” in the Outtrim area for a period of about 25 minutes.
Rogers says the evidence suggests Patterson was aware of the citizen science iNaturalist website which she used to visit web pages about death cap mushrooms.
The jury has been shown a series of artefacts on a Cooler Master computer seized from Patterson’s house, Rogers says.
She says the prosecution alleges Patterson used the computer to search for the iNaturalist website on the search engine Bing in May 2022.
“Clearly this was a targeted search. Not browsing on the internet,” Rogers says.
Rogers says one of the webpages, which the prosecution alleges Patterson visited, showed a world map marking sightings of death cap mushrooms.
“The accused did not navigate to other types of mushrooms. She did not meander around the website. She went directly to death cap mushrooms,” Roger says.
“You can safely infer it was the accused making these searches … because at the very same time … they Googled Korumburra Middle Pub and put in a food order.”
She says the jury has seen the records of this order which was placed under Patterson’s name.
Rogers says Patterson chose the meal for the lunch and was responsible for selecting the ingredients.
Rogers says the recipe from the RecipeTin Eats book, which Patterson told police she used for the beef wellington, did not call for “multiple individual” pasties.
Rogers says Patterson did not prepare a shared dish where each guest had a slice from a single beef wellington.
“Why deviate so significantly from an unfamiliar recipe … ”
Rogers says Patterson did so to ensure she did not become unwell from the meal.
Rogers says the week prior to the lunch Patterson had purchased 1.75kg of mushrooms.
“There was absolutely no need to add an entire packet of dried mushrooms.”
She tells the jury to reject Patterson’s testimony that she ate the 1kg of mushrooms she bought on 23 July 2023 – six days prior to the lunch.
Rogers says the death cap mushrooms in the meal were prepared differently from the button mushrooms which were chopped.
“They were most likely to be prepared differently,” she says.
She says they were likely prepared in a way to become “unidentifiable”.
Patterson thought ‘her lie would die with them’, Rogers says
Rogers says Patterson made “bald-faced lies” to her in-laws about her medical appointments.
“She knew how to tell convincing lies when it came to the cancer because she had put in the research,” she says.
“The prosecution says the accused put considerable thought and effort into this fake cancer claim and she deliberately set the trail in motion with Don and Gail.”
Rogers says Patterson agreed in court that she had never been diagnosed with cancer.
Rogers says Patterson did not think she would be questioned about her cancer lie because she intended to kill her lunch guests.
“Her lie would die with them.”
Rogers says it was “entirely” Patterson’s plan that her two children would not be present at the lunch.
“She made sure the children were away at McDonald’s at the cinema by the time the lunch guests were arriving.”
She says this was a “deliberate” step by the accused to ensure the children would not be harmed by the “poison she was about to serve”.
Rogers turns to evidence by Ian Wilkinson that Paterson announced she had cancer after the lunch.
She says the jury should reject Patterson’s claim that she only told them she may need cancer treatment.
“This was the accused simply trying to minimise the lie she told her lunch guests,” she says.
Rogers says Patterson created an “elaborate lie” regarding cancer.
She says the lie was “planted” before the lunch. She points to messages between Patterson and her mother-in-law Gail Patterson when they messaged the month before the lunch about medical appointments the accused had fabricated.
Rogers reminds the jury that that police reviewed Patterson’s medical records and found no evidence of her having an MRI or needle biopsy.
Prosecution begins closing address
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC is delivering her closing address to the jury.
She says Patterson opted to prepare individual serves of beef wellingtons for the lunch on 29 July 2023, which gave her “control” over the meal which she “exercised with devastating effect”.
“It allowed her to give the appearance of sharing the same meal,” Rogers says.
She asks the jurors to consider what “other reasonable possibility” could explain the four lunch guests falling ill.
Rogers says the evidence surrounding the lunch invitation should satisfy the jurors that Patterson fabricated her cancer claim to create a reason for her otherwise “unusual” meal.
She says Patterson gave her estranged husband, Simon, multiple reasons to attend the lunch:
“She painted a picture of a gathering which was not just social but contained important family business,” she says.
What the jury heard last time
Here’s a recap of what the jury heard when court last sat on Thursday:
1. A clinic where Patterson said she had a pre-surgery appointment for a gastric-bypass procedure offered liposuction until mid-2024, the court heard. Patterson previously told the court she was also looking into liposuction. She said she lied to her lunch guests about having cancer treatment because she was embarrassed about planned weight-loss surgery.
2. Patterson denied lying about her estranged husband, Simon, accusing her of poisoning his parents with a food dehydrator in the days after the lunch.
3. Patterson rejected the prosecution’s suggestion she performed three factory resets in August 2023 on a phone she handed to police to “conceal” its “true contents”.
4. In her final moments of cross-examination, Patterson denied she deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms in 2022, included the toxic fungi in beef wellingtons she served and intended to kill her lunch guests.
5. The defence closed its case. Justice Christopher Beale tells the jury the evidence in the trial has concluded.
Welcome to day 32 of Erin Patterson’s triple-murder trial.
The evidence in Patterson’s trial concluded last week. In the coming days, the prosecution and defence will deliver their closing arguments to the jury. Justice Christopher Beale will then issue instructions to the jurors ahead of their deliberations.
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 Wilkinson.
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.
