The jury within the high-profile homicide trial of an Australian lady accused of cooking a lethal mushroom lunch for kin has retired to resolve her destiny.
Erin Patterson, 50, has pleaded not responsible to 4 fees – three of homicide and one in every of tried homicide – over the meat Wellington lunch at her regional Victorian home in July 2023.
The prosecution have claimed Ms Patterson knowingly put poisonous dying cap mushrooms into the home-cooked meal, earlier than mendacity to police and disposing of proof.
However the defence argue Ms Patterson unintentionally included the toxic fungi within the dish and solely lied as a result of she panicked after hurting folks she beloved.
Ms Patterson’s in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, each 70, together with Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson, 66, all fell ailing and died days after the lunch in Leongatha.
Heather’s husband, native pastor Ian Wilkinson, recovered after weeks in an induced coma. Simon Patterson, the accused’s estranged husband, had been invited to the lunch too, however pulled out the day earlier than.
On Monday, Justice Christopher Beale gave his last directions to the 14-member jury, summing up proof from the prosecution and the only defence witness, Ms Patterson.
After virtually two months and greater than 50 witnesses, the ultimate 12 jurors had been determined by a poll earlier than the group retired for deliberations.
In her closing arguments, prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC stated Ms Patterson has “advised so many lies it is arduous to maintain observe of them”.
The prosecution alleged Ms Patterson lied to her kin a couple of most cancers analysis to persuade them to attend the deadly lunch, poisoned them after which faked an sickness to cowl her tracks.
Ms Patterson’s additional lies to police and medical employees about foraging for wild mushrooms, in addition to her choice to dump a meals dehydrator used to arrange the meal, had been proof of her guilt, they argued.
“She has advised lies upon lies as a result of she knew the reality would implicate her,” Nanette Rogers stated.
“When she knew her lies had been uncovered, she got here up with a rigorously constructed narrative to suit with the proof – virtually.”
There was no “explicit motive” for the alleged crime, Dr Rogers advised the courtroom, however the jury ought to nonetheless have “no issue” in rejecting the argument “this was all a horrible foraging accident”.
Nonetheless, the defence argued the dearth of motive was key. Ms Patterson had no motive to kill her visitors, they stated.
Throughout Ms Patterson’s proof, she advised the jury she was very near her in-laws and by no means meant to hurt them.
As she was getting ready the lunch, Ms Patterson claimed she added mushrooms from a container in her pantry that she now realised could have included each store-bought and foraged mushrooms.
She additionally advised the courtroom she had suffered from bulimia for years, and had made herself throw up after the meat Wellington meal – one thing her defence crew says explains why she didn’t change into as sick because the others who ate it.
The lie about having most cancers was as a result of she was embarrassed about plans to get weight-loss surgical procedure, Ms Patterson stated, and she or he did not inform authorities the reality about her mushroom foraging passion as a result of she feared they could blame her for making her kin sick.
“She’s not on trial for mendacity,” defence lawyer Colin Mandy SC, “this isn’t a courtroom of ethical judgment”.
He accused the prosecution of attempting to pressure “puzzle items” of proof collectively, “stretching interpretations, ignoring various explanations as a result of they do not align completely with the narrative”.
In his last directions, Justice Beale advised the jury members they alone are the “judges of the information on this case”.
He stated they need to not convict Ms Patterson merely for mendacity, as there are “all types of the explanation why an individual may behave in a manner that makes the particular person look responsible”.
He added that whereas “any cheap particular person would really feel nice sympathy” for the Patterson and Wilkinson households, jurors additionally should not permit themselves to be swayed by feelings.
The jury has now been sequestered, which signifies that whereas they deliberate, they may keep in supervised lodging the place they may have little to no contact with the skin world till they’ve reached a choice.
