Defence begins closing address to jury
Patterson’s defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, is delivering his closing address to the jury.
He says the jury’s consideration needs to come down to two issues. First, whether there is a reasonable possibility that death cap mushrooms were put into the beef wellingtons accidentally.
Second, whether there is a reasonable possibility that Patterson did not intend to kill or cause serious injury to her guests.
He says if either of these are a reasonable possibility the jury must find Patterson not guilty.
“That’s the law,” he says.
He says the prosecution has a “flawed approach” in analysing the evidence.
“The prosecution has just made an argument. That’s not evidence,” he says.
Mandy says the prosecution has selected parts of the evidence that suits their argument while “discarding inconvenient truths”.
Key events
Mandy says without a motive the jury is “left guessing about the most important element of this trial and that’s intention”, he says.
He says the prosecution has spent a lot of time “scratching around” to find evidence about animosity in Patterson’s family dynamics.
He points to evidence the prosecution led about Patterson and Simon having a dispute about child support and other financial arrangements in December 2022.
“They want to show there was some kind of difficulty … and that might provide a reason to murder his parents and his aunt and uncle six months later,” he says.
“Even saying it aloud … shows how unpersuasive that argument is.”
Mandy says the disputes over finances for their children occurred over a few days in December 2022.
“It was a brief spat, we say, about child support, which the evidence says was resolved amicably.”
“Obviously Erin was upset. She freely acknowledged that. She was venting to her Facebook friends … even months before the lunch.”
Mandy says another reason to consider that the lunch guests were good and kind people is because Patterson had no reason to harm them.
He says he will touch on the absence of a motive, as the prosecution predicted in their closing address.
Mandy reminds the jury that the prosecution does not have to prove motive. But he says one element of the offence of murder is intention to kill or cause serious injury.
“They have to prove that’s what Erin Patterson meant to do,” he says.
“Proof of a motive or the fact of a motive can be very important to intention.”
Jurors must put ‘natural human emotions’ aside and judge case on facts alone, Mandy says
Mandy says it is clear to everyone in the court room that Ian Wilkinson is a “kind and good person”. He says this also applies to the three lunch guests who died.
Human beings naturally feel deep empathy when confronted with events of loss, Mandy says.
He says humans may have an instinctive reaction to seek retribution for someone whose actions have caused the death of others.
“We know these actions of Erin Patterson caused the deaths of these three people and the serious illness of another” he says.
Mandy says jurors are judges and must guard against this type of thinking.
“You have to put your natural human emotions … to one side.”
He says the case is about a criminal offence with elements that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt.
“As a judge, what’s in your hearts, has no relevance at all,” he says.
Mandy says jurors must make a judgment on the facts alone.
Mandy says an important issue in this case is whether it is possible for people to share the same meal, containing death cap mushrooms, and have “very different health outcomes”.
“The answer to that question is a fundamental part of the case,” he says.
Mandy says the prosecution “seems to say ‘not possible’”.
Mandy says the prosecution should have called evidence if there was a medical reason Patterson did not become as unwell as her lunch guests.
The jurors have returned to the court room in Morwell
The court has adjourned for a lunch break
Mandy’s closing address will continue from 2.15pm.
Mandy points to the “imperfect” evidence of nurse Kylie Ashton who told the trial the Patterson’s children eating the beef wellington leftovers was first discussed at her initial presentation at Leongatha hospital.
Mandy says this evidence was not supported by other medical witnesses and it was inconceivable doctors knew about the children at the initial presentation as they would have taken urgent action.
He says the nurse may have found out about the children later and made a mistake when she testified.
Mandy tells the jury that people have “imperfect and honestly mistaken memories”.
He says the jurors will have experienced telling a story to a group of people and having it recounted differently.
“Details get emphasised, details get minimised,” he says.
Defence begins closing address to jury
Patterson’s defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, is delivering his closing address to the jury.
He says the jury’s consideration needs to come down to two issues. First, whether there is a reasonable possibility that death cap mushrooms were put into the beef wellingtons accidentally.
Second, whether there is a reasonable possibility that Patterson did not intend to kill or cause serious injury to her guests.
He says if either of these are a reasonable possibility the jury must find Patterson not guilty.
“That’s the law,” he says.
He says the prosecution has a “flawed approach” in analysing the evidence.
“The prosecution has just made an argument. That’s not evidence,” he says.
Mandy says the prosecution has selected parts of the evidence that suits their argument while “discarding inconvenient truths”.
Prosecutor concludes closing address
On Monday, Rogers told the jury that Patterson had made four calculated deceptions. She says Patterson has also played a “fifth deception” in her story she told the jury.
Rogers says there are inconsistencies Patterson cannot account for so she ignores them or says witnesses, including her children, are wrong.
“Focus on the evidence,” she says.
“Remember to combine all the evidence in this case.”
Rogers says this includes Patterson preparing and allocating the meal, that she was the only one who consumed the meal and did not fall seriously ill, familiarity with the citizen science website iNaturalist and the observation map for death cap mushrooms.
She also points to cell tower evidence consistent with her phone being in the two locations in Gippsland where death cap mushrooms were seen and reported on iNaturalist in April and May 2023, photos of the mushrooms Patterson was dehydrating months before the lunch which are consistent in appearance with death cap mushrooms and remnants of death caps found in the dehydrator.
“When you consider all of the evidence in combination, we suggest, you will be satisfied that the accused deliberately sourced death caps and deliberately served death caps,” Rogers says.
“Those conclusions, we suggest, will lead you to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of each of the four charges on the indictment.”
Rogers has concluded her closing address.
Jury ‘must not feel sorry for the accused’, Rogers says
Rogers says the jury should not let their emotional response to the events sway their verdict.
“You must not feel sorry for the accused,” she says.
“You may not want to believe that anyone is capable of what the accused has done … you might not understand it.”
“But look at the evidence. Don’t let your emotional reaction dictate your verdict.”
Rogers says there is no reasonable alternative other than Pattrson deliberating sourcing death cap mushrooms and deliberating putting them in the beef wellingtons.
She says after the lunch Patterson told multiple lies.
“She’s told lies upon lies because she knew the truth would implicate,” she says.
‘You cannot accept the accused as a truthful, trustworthy witness,’ Rogers says
Rogers reminds the jury that Patterson has no legal obligation to prove anything in the trial.
She stresses that parts of Patterson’s story, including her history of foraging wild mushrooms between 2020 and 2023, are based solely on her own evidence.
She says binge eating and purging, vomiting after the fateful lunch and stopping to go to the toilet in a bush the day after the beef wellington meal, also fall in this category.
“The prosecution says you cannot accept the accused as a truthful, trustworthy witness,” Rogers says.
“You should reject her evidence.”
Rogers turns to lies Patterson has told
These include not owning a dehydrator and not foraging for mushrooms.
Rogers says there are also lies Patterson had told but not admitted to.
She says Patterson lied when she testified she invited her guests to the beef wellington meal because she had had an enjoyable lunch with Don and Gail the month prior.
The evidence shows Patterson indicated the lunch was to discuss a medical issue, Rogers says.
She tells the jury Patterson also lied when she testified that she never told the lunch guests she had a cancer diagnosis.
She says Patterson herself said she discussed cancer treatment at the lunch.
“That does not happen without a diagnosis,” Rogers says.
She says the “starkest lie” was when Patterson testified she was planning to have gastric bypass surgery in 2023. Rogers reminds the jury of evidence that the clinic where Patterson said she had a pre-surgery appointment has never offered this procedure.
Prosecutor says Patterson thought ‘she would get away with these crimes’
Rogers says the jury may wonder why Patterson shared photos of her dehydrator with her online friend if she planned to use it to dehydrate death cap mushrooms.
“It’s certainly easy to identify where she went wrong when you look back,” she says.
But she says the jury should ensure their assessment is based on the evidence of this case.
“I suggest to you, the accused did think she would get away with these crimes and she never suspected doctors would so quickly assume death cap mushrooms were involved,” Rogers says.
‘What would you do?,’ prosecutor asks jury
Rogers asks the jury to imagine what they would do if they were in Patterson’s position.
“If you were told the meal you had served and cooked your family possibly had death cap mushrooms, what would you do?” she asks.
Rogers says they would not go into self preservation mode, be reluctant to receive medical treatment or take 2.5 hours to “eventually agree” to get their children medically assessed.
“You would do everything you could to help the people you love. You would tell the treating medical practitioners every skerrick of information,” she says.
Rogers rebuffs innocent explanations
Rogers says the defence will probably argue there are innocent explanations of Patterson’s actions like discharging herself from the hospital within minutes of arriving, being reluctant to get her children medically tested and dumping the dehydrator.
Rogers plays the jury CCTV footage of medical staff trying to stop Patterson from discharging herself from Leongtha hospital on 31 July 2023.
She says Patterson told police she needed to leave the hospital to organise things for her children and animals. But Rogers says she had already dropped her children at the bus stop for school.
She says there were other ways she could have managed her children and animals given she had been warned she may have ingested a fatal toxin.
Rogers says the jury should reject suggestions by the defence that Patterson dumped the dehydrator because she panicked
“Panic does not explain the extensive and prolonged efforts that the accused went to in order to cover up what she had done,” she says.
Patterson continued to lie even when the lives of her lunch guests were at stake, Rogers says.
