Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates: Marathon trial enters its final week

Justice Beale told the jury about ‘tendency evidence’ in which Patterson claimed she had an interest in foraging for wild mushrooms.

He said Patterson said she picked and ate wild mushrooms during the Covid pandemic which she foraged while going on walks in the Korumburra Botanical Gardens and at her three-acre Korumburra property.

Justice Beale said Patterson claimed she picked all the mushrooms at her property because she didn’t know if they would be harmful to her dog.

Patterson also claimed she picked mushrooms at a rail trail to Leongatha and at her Leongatha property.

Justice Beale said if the jury accepted Patterson was a ‘person of good character’ they could use it to judge her credibility and weigh up the likelihood she would commit the crimes she’s accused of.

But he said ‘good character alone could not erase the evidence’.

The trial is on a short break.

Justice Beale said Patterson’s evidence should not be given ‘less weight’ while referring to ‘good character’ evidence.

He reminded the jury Simon suggested his estranged partner had got on well with his parents even after they separated.

Justice Beale also said Patterson had been generous with her money to assist Simon’s family with loans.

‘There was no interest on those loans,’ he reminded the jury.

He said Patterson appeared ‘close’ to her in-laws, according to Simon and she took her role as a parent seriously.

Justice Beale also recalled evidence that suggested Patterson was a devoted mother.

He looked at the Facebook messenger group, with Christine Hunt suggesting Patterson was ‘an attentive and devoted mother’.

Others said they believed her to be a lovely mother.

‘Her life revolved around her children,’ one Facebook friend had said.

Justice Beale also highlighted the evidence of informant detective Stephen Eppingstall (pictured right) who said Patterson had no criminal record.

Justice Beale reminded the jury Patterson (pictured) did not need to give evidence.

He said she ‘undertook to tell the truth’ but her evidence should be assessed the same way as anyone else who gave evidence in the trial.

Justice Beale said if the jury believed Patterson, they should find her not guilty.

‘It’s not enough that you prefer the prosecution case to Ms Patterson’s evidence,’ he said.

‘The prosecution must establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.’

Justice Beale said the jury needed to judge if witnesses were ‘honest, accurate and reliable’.

‘Honest witnesses can be mistaken,’ he said.

Justice Beale also urged the jury to use ‘common sense’ and be careful to consider the agreed facts of the case.

Justice Beale said Patterson’s children were both young at the time as he discussed the child witnesses in the case.

He said kids can ‘remember important events’ and explained how children go about understanding the world around them.

Justice Beale said some kids struggled to answer certain questions and the child’s development made a difference in their responses.

The jury was told not to base its decision on information obtained anywhere other than within the court itself.

Justice Beale said the case had attracted ‘unprecedented coverage’ and urged the jury not to be influenced by anything it may have heard

‘So disregard any outside information,’ he said.

Justice Beale said the case must be decided on the evidence alone and the jury should not be prejudiced about Patterson’s various lies.

He urged them not to let sympathy for anyone involved hamper their judgement.

‘This is court of law, not a court of morals,’ Justice Beale said.

‘I’ll give you directions later about the legitimate use you can make of any proven lies or proven attempts by her to dispose of or conceal evidence, but you must resist mere bias or prejudice, nor must you let sympathy for the extended Patterson or Wilkinson families [affect] your judgment.

‘Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not asking you to be inhuman, none of us are robots.

‘Any decent person would feel great sympathy for the Patterson and Wilkinson (Ian Wilkinson is pictured) families, given what has befallen them, but you must scrupulously guard against that sympathy interfering with the performance of your duty.

‘So emotions such as prejudice and sympathy must have no part to play in your decision…

‘Remember you are judges of facts… you must act like judges, good judges.’

Justice Beale has explained the basics of the case, Patterson’s not guilty pleas and the jury’s role in applying the law to the facts to decide the outcome as he explains to the jury the points of law which need to be applied in the case.

He said the jury must accept his directions on law.

‘The verdict you return has absolutely nothing to do with me,’ he said.

Justice Beale told the jury he will ‘endeavour not to make any comments about the case’.

And if he did, the jury should ‘ignore’ him.

‘You alone are the judges of the facts,’ he said.

Justice Beale is explaining important dates of the trial including when the lunch took place and when Patterson and her guests presented at hospital.

He told the jury he used the first names of the Patterson and Wilkinson families but said ‘he meant no disrespect by doing so’.

Justice Beale also recalled evidence Patterson gave in which she alleged Simon (pictured) accused her of using the dehydrator to poison his parents.

He told the jury Simon denied the allegation.

Justice Beale said it was a point the defence relied upon to explain Patterson’s behaviour that followed.

He also referred to Patterson hiding mushrooms in muffins.

Justice Beale told the jury they are the judges and their opinion counts while explaining how the chronology document is laid out.

He said the document is broken up into sections of time and includes references to alleged events and statements from the Patterson (pictured) trial.

‘But even though I said to you, I’ve tried to steer clear of controversy in the things I’ve included in the chronology, you’ll notice the headings at the top of the page are alleged date, alleged time, alleged event…,’ Justice Beale said.

‘So if you think there’s something in here that’s wrong, it’s your opinion that counts, not mine.’

Justice Christopher Beale has told the jury in the Erin Patterson murder trial that their verdict must be ‘unanimous’.

Patterson, who is today wearing a brown jacket and a paisley top, listened as Justice Beale explained to the jury how his charge will proceed.

Justice Beale also explained how two of the remaining 14 jurors will be balloted out.

The jury were given an 84-page hard copy of the trial chronology which Justice Beale said wasn’t ‘homework’ but rather something the jury could ‘dip into’.

Justice Beale also said references to ‘disputed events’ will not be included in the chronology.

‘Those are matters for you to decide,’ he said.

‘I’ve tried to steer clear of controversy in the preparation of this chronology.’

Mr Mandy (pictured right) on Thursday wrapped up his closing address by asking the jury to find his client not guilty.

‘Like we’re competing against each other like a boxing match or a football match, or netball or whatever, the truth is, it’s more like the high jump,’ Mr Mandy said.

‘This is important because only the prosecution has to get over the bar, defence doesn’t have to do anything, defence doesn’t have to jump any bar.

‘Erin Patterson doesn’t have to jump any bar at all, prosecution have to clear the bar, and it’s the highest bar known to the law, and that’s where you are now.

‘You are at innocent with Erin Patterson, that’s your starting point. Starting point is innocence…

‘She doesn’t have to prove her innocence to you because she is innocent and it’s for the prosecution to disprove her account of accidental poisoning…

‘So in conclusion, the way of thinking about this in relation to deliberateness is was the poisoning deliberate?

‘If you think that it’s possible that Erin deliberately poisoned the meal, you must find her not guilty.

‘If you think that maybe Erin deliberately poisoned the meal, you must find her not guilty.

‘If you think that she probably deliberately poisoned, you must find her not guilty…

‘If you think at the end of your deliberations, taking into account the arguments that we’ve made, that it’s a possibility that this was an accident, a reasonable possibility, you must find her not guilty.

‘And if you think it’s a reasonable possibility that her evidence was true, you must find her not guilty.

‘And our submission to you is the prosecution can’t get over that high bar… When you consider the actual evidence. And consider it properly, methodically analytically. Your verdicts on those charges should be not guilty.’

Mr Mandy thanked the jury for their ‘attention’ then concluded his address.

The trial will resume at 10.30am.

Last Thursday, Mr Mandy said Patterson claimed Phone A had been previously damaged as he revealed the ‘stupid thing’ his client did following the lunch.

‘Phone A was damaged and that’s the reason why she stopped using it,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy claimed Patterson could not change a sim card on her phone while police were there.

Mr Mandy asked the jury if the accused had hidden Phone A why did she wait until the next day to change the sim card out of it?

‘She couldn’t use it because it was damaged,’ he said.

‘The stupid thing she did was factory reset Phone B a couple of times.

‘There was nothing to be achieved by factory resetting Phone B.’

Mr Mandy said Patterson reset the phone due to her ‘panic’.

Mr Mandy has explained why his client was eager to leave Leongatha Hospital during her first visit on July 31, 2023.

‘On July 31, when Patterson attended hospital, there was immediate concern over mushroom poisoning,’ Mr Mandy said.

‘This is not a normal presentation… this is a significant event in Leongatha Hospital history.’

Mr Mandy said when Patterson left the hospital at 8.10am it was because she ‘was not prepared for what she walked into’.

Mr Mandy said his client needed to do things before she was transferred to another hospital.

‘And her mind moved to the practical considerations,’ he said.

Mr Mandy said Patterson had kids at school and had multiple activities to organise.

Patterson previously told the jury she struggled to process what was happening.

Mr Mandy commenced his closing address after Crown Prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers (pictured) concluded her closing address.

Lead defence barrister Colin Mandy SC concluded his closing address to the jury last Thursday afternoon.

Before ending his address, Mr Mandy (pictured) rejected allegations Patterson lied about being sick as he again highlighted for the jury the timing of Patterson’s supposed illness after the lunch.

Mr Mandy said Patterson did not say in her evidence that she tasted the duxelles (mix of mushrooms) after she added the dried mushrooms to it, but it was ‘common sense’ that she did so.

‘She wasn’t cross examined about it at all,’ he said.

Justice Christopher Beale will commence his address to the jury – or ‘charge’ – this morning after giving jurors a four-day weekend to prepare for the closing stage of the marathon Erin Patterson murder trial.

Patterson, 50, is accused of murdering her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, after allegedly serving them a beef Wellington lunch made with death cap mushrooms.

Patterson is also accused of attempting to murder Heather’s husband, pastor Ian Wilkinson, who survived the lunch after spending several weeks in an intensive care unit.

The court heard Patterson’s estranged husband, Simon, was also invited to the gathering at her home in Leongatha, in Victoria’s Gippsland region, but didn’t attend.

Witnesses told the jury that Patterson ate her serving from a smaller, differently-coloured plate to those of her guests, who ate off four grey plates.

Patterson told authorities she bought dried mushrooms from an unnamed Asian store in the Monash area of Melbourne, but health inspectors could find no evidence of this.