Patterson tells court she cannot recall searching online for death cap sightings
Another URL shows a death cap mushroom sighting in Melbourne posted on the iNaturalist website.
Patterson says it’s “possible” she looked at the site. “I don’t know,” she says.
Asked if her child accessed these sites on the computer, Patterson says, “I don’t know.”
“I suggest you had an interest in death cap mushrooms on 28 May 2022,” Rogers says.
“Depends what you mean by an interest,” Patterson replies.
Key events
Recap: what the jury heard today
Here’s a recap of what the jury heard today during Patterson’s cross-examination:
-
Erin Patterson said she could not recall accessing posts about death cap mushroom sightings on the citizen science website iNaturalist in May 2022. The court was shown a report from data extracted from a computer that police seized from Patterson’s house a week after the lunch. It showed the Bing search engine was used to look up the citizen science website iNaturalist in May 2022.
-
Patterson said on 1 August 2023 – three days after the lunch – she realised foraged mushrooms may have been in a Tupperware container storing store-bought mushrooms and used in the beef wellingtons. This occurred after her estranged husband Simon asked if she used a dehydrator to poison his parents, Patterson said. She agreed she did not tell anyone about this realisation.
-
Patterson denied that the “purpose” of the fateful lunch on 29 July 2023 was to discuss advice about a medical issue she had. Patterson acknowledged she told Simon about “some medical stuff” when she invited him to the lunch about two weeks prior.
-
Patterson says the medical issues referred to gastric bypass surgery for weight loss she was planning to have. She said she had a pre-surgery appointment booked for this.
-
Patterson said she felt “ashamed” about a message she sent to her Facebook friends in December 2022 where she wrote “fuck em” in relation to her in-laws, Don and Gail. She rejected the prosecution’s suggestion that messages in a group Facebook chat reflected her true feelings towards Don and Gail.
Court adjourns
The court has adjourned for the long weekend.
Justice Christopher Beale reminds the jury not to speak to anyone about the trial apart from their fellow jurors in the jury room.
Patterson’s cross-examination will continue on Tuesday from 10.30am.
Patterson tells court she cannot recall searching online for death cap sightings
Another URL shows a death cap mushroom sighting in Melbourne posted on the iNaturalist website.
Patterson says it’s “possible” she looked at the site. “I don’t know,” she says.
Asked if her child accessed these sites on the computer, Patterson says, “I don’t know.”
“I suggest you had an interest in death cap mushrooms on 28 May 2022,” Rogers says.
“Depends what you mean by an interest,” Patterson replies.
Patterson asked about death cap mushroom sightings posted to iNaturalist
Rogers asks about evidence from Patterson’s Facebook friend that she was regarded as a good researcher.
Patterson agrees she can be a good researcher, but says other people can also find information quickly.
Rogers says the trial has heard evidence about data found on the Cooler Master computer police seized from Patterson’s house. The court is shown a digital analysis report, which shows the Bing search engine was used to look up the citizen science website iNaturalist in May 2022. It also lists URLs about death cap mushroom sightings on the website.
Rogers suggests Patterson did the browsing on Bing.
Patterson replies: “I don’t remember doing it. It’s possible it was me.”
Rogers puts to Patterson: “I suggest you knew what website you were looking for.”
“I can’t say that because I don’t remember this,” Patterson says.
She says at “one point” she wanted to find out if death cap mushrooms grew in South Gippsland. She says she found out they did not.
Patterson tearfully says she wanted to thank the Wilkinsons ‘for being good to me over the years’
Rogers turns to Patterson’s relationship with Simon’s maternal aunt, Heather Wilkinson and her husband, Ian Wilkinson.
Rogers takes the court through Ian’s evidence. He described his relationship with Patterson as “more like acquaintances” and said they did not see each other frequently.
Patterson agrees and says they mainly saw each other at church.
Asked about Ian’s evidence that Heather and Patterson were not close, she says “that’s probably fair”.
Patterson agrees Heather and Ian had not been to her house before as a couple. She says Heather had been to her house before.
Rogers asks why she invited Heather and Ian to the fateful lunch on 29 July 2023. Patterson says there were a “few reasons”:
Ian had been my pastor for years and years and I would see and speak with Ian and Heather a lot after church and I really liked them … I wanted to have a stronger relationship with them.
She recalls Gail telling her, while at Patterson’s Leongatha home in June, that Heather would love to see her garden. She says:
And I thought, oh it’s a great opportunity to invite Heather and Ian the next time I have Don and Gail for lunch.
Patterson becomes teary as she says she wanted to “say thank you for being good to me over the years”. She continues:
Heather helped me a lot when [my daughter] was little… I was shy and I didn’t really know many people. Heather would sit with me …
Patterson reaches for a tissue.
Patterson rejects suggestion she did not ask how unwell Don and Gail Wilkinson were in phone call on 30 July
Rogers asks about Simon’s evidence about a phone call with Patterson the day after the lunch – 30 July 2023.
Patterson rejects Rogers’ suggestion that she never asked how unwell Don and Gail were at this point.
Patterson denies having ‘two faces’ regarding relationship with Simon’s parents
Rogers says she suggests Patterson didn’t love Don and Gail and that they took Simon’s side in their child support dispute.
“That’s not true,” Patterson says.
Rogers says those feelings continued.
“Incorrect,” Patterson says.
Rogers says Patterson had “two faces”. She says Patterson had a “public face of appearing to have a good relationship with Don and Gail” which she showed to people like Simon and his siblings.
Patterson says: “I had a good relationship with Don and Gail.”
Rogers says: “I suggest your private face was the one you showed in your Facebook messenger use. Correct or incorrect?”
“Incorrect,” Patterson replies.
Rogers presses further: “And how you truly felt about Don and Gail was how you expressed it in your Facebook messages …”
“Incorrect,” Patterson says.
A visibly upset Patterson is biting her lower lip.
Patterson agrees it was ‘unusual’ to have lunch guests
Rogers says Cripps testified that Patterson told her she had a good relationship with Don and Gail but felt “isolated” from her in-laws recently.
Patterson says it is likely she said this.
She says she told Cripps they treated her like a “daughter”, not a “daughter-in-law”.
Rogers takes Patterson to the evidence of Prof Rhonda Stuart, a doctor at Monash hospital. Stuart testified that while in hospital Patterson told her having lunch with Simon’s relatives was not “unusual”.
Rogers asks if it was “unusual” for Patterson to invite people to her house for lunch at this time.
“Yes, that’s probably true,” Patterson says.
Rogers says the fateful lunch was a “special” meal. Patterson agrees she wanted it to be a special meal.
Patterson says she has no memory of having a conversation with Stuart.
Patterson says she cannot remember telling child protection worker about not being invited to family events
Rogers says child protection worker Katrina Cripps gave evidence on 1 August 2023 Patterson said she “loved Don and Gail” and had a good relationship with her in-laws until recently. Patterson agrees.
Cripps said Patterson also told her that since the relationship with Simon had changed she thought he was isolating her from his family.
Patterson says she “probably did tell her that”.
Cripps said Patterson told her she was no longer invited to the family events she would normally attend. Patterson says she “thinks” Cripps is wrong as she cannot specifically remember saying this.
Patterson did not share realisation foraged mushrooms may have been in meal
Rogers takes Patterson to a discussion she and Simon had on 1 August 2023 while at Monash hospital. Patterson said Simon asked her if she had used a dehydrator to poison his parents.
Patterson told the court earlier this week this conversation caused her to reflect on “what might have happened”.
Patterson agrees on this date she realised foraged mushrooms may have been in a Tupperware container storing store-bought mushrooms and used in the beef wellingtons.
Rogers says she never told a medical professional or anyone else that foraged mushrooms may have been used in the meal. Patterson agrees.
Rogers says Patterson’s realisation on 1 August 2023 was days before anyone had died.
Patterson agrees she did not tell anyone about her realisation after this date.
Rogers says after her realisation, Patterson disposed of the dehydrator. Patterson agrees.
Patterson says medical issues to be discussed at the lunch related to gastric bypass surgery
Regarding the lunch invitation, Patterson says:
My memory is I said to him [Simon] something like: there’s some medical stuff I’ll talk to you about then.
Patterson says she did not tell Simon she needed advice on how to break it to the children.
Rogers takes Patterson back to the message she sent Simon the day before the lunch, saying that she would not be able to host a “lunch like this again for some time”.
Patterson agrees this phrase was a reference to medical issues.
Rogers says Patterson lied to Simon on 16 July 2023 when she said she had some medical issues to discuss.
“No, that wasn’t a lie,” Patterson says.
Patterson says she was planning to have gastric bypass surgery for weight loss. Patterson says she had a pre-surgery appointment booked for this at the Enrich clinic in Melbourne. She says she does not remember the date of this appointment.
Rogers says she will return to this topic later.
Patterson denies ‘purpose’ of lunch was to discuss medical advice
Rogers says Patterson did not want her children to be present at the lunch so they would not eat the meal she was planning to serve her lunch guests.
“No, that’s not true,” Patterson says.
Rogers shows the court a message Simon sent on 28 July 2023 – the day prior to the lunch. In it, Simon says he feels “too uncomfortable” to attend the lunch but is happy to discuss Patterson’s “health” and the “implications” of it.
Rogers says Simon’s reference to Patterson’s health is a direct reference to her telling him on 16 July 2023 that she had important medical news.
“I disagree,” Patterson replies.
In Patterson’s reply, she said Simon declining the lunch invite was disappointing. She said she may not be able to host a lunch like this “for a long time”.
Rogers says Patterson wrote those words to make it seem like the “medical issue was the reason”. She says Patterson was “purporting” to refer to the medical issues she told him about on 16 July 2023.
Patterson says she did tell Simon on 16 July 2023 that she wanted to discuss medical things at the lunch.
Patterson says in her earlier evidence, she was rejecting that the medical issue was “important” and that she needed advice on how to break it to the children.
“I wasn’t after advice,” she says.
Patterson says she did want to discuss medical advice but it was not the “purpose” of the lunch. She says:
I can’t remember the precise words but all I can tell you is it was not why I was inviting him.
