The jury within the high-profile homicide trial of an Australian girl accused of cooking a lethal mushroom lunch for kinfolk has retired to determine her destiny.
Erin Patterson, 50, has pleaded not responsible to 4 costs – 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 by accident included the toxic fungi within the dish and solely lied as a result of she panicked after hurting folks she cherished.
Ms Patterson’s in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, each 70, together with Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson, 66, all fell in poor health 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 closing directions to the 14-member jury, summing up proof from the prosecution and the only defence witness, Ms Patterson.
After nearly 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 “instructed so many lies it is exhausting to maintain monitor of them”.
The prosecution alleged Ms Patterson lied to her kinfolk a couple of most cancers prognosis 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 workers about foraging for wild mushrooms, in addition to her resolution to dump a meals dehydrator used to organize the meal, had been proof of her guilt, they argued.
“She has instructed 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 – nearly.”
There was no “specific motive” for the alleged crime, Dr Rogers instructed the court docket, 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 shortage of motive was key. Ms Patterson had no purpose to kill her company, they stated.
Throughout Ms Patterson’s proof, she instructed the jury she was very near her in-laws and by no means meant to hurt them.
As she was making ready the lunch, Ms Patterson claimed she added mushrooms from a container in her pantry that she now realised might have included each store-bought and foraged mushrooms.
She additionally instructed the court docket she had suffered from bulimia for years, and had made herself throw up after the meat Wellington meal – one thing her defence workforce says explains why she didn’t develop 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 he or she did not inform authorities the reality about her mushroom foraging pastime as a result of she feared they may blame her for making her kinfolk sick.
“She’s not on trial for mendacity,” defence lawyer Colin Mandy SC, “this isn’t a court docket 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 closing directions, Justice Beale instructed 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 reason why an individual may behave in a method that makes the particular person look responsible”.
He added that whereas “any affordable 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 implies that whereas they deliberate, they’ll keep in supervised lodging the place they’ll have little to no contact with the surface world till they’ve reached a choice.