Australia mushroom lunch trial live: Erin Patterson’s lies must not cause jury to ‘be prejudiced against her’, judge says

The court has adjourned for a break. The trial will resume from 2.15pm. Beale continues to outline the inconsistencies in evidence from other witnesses: Ian Wilkinson First, Ian’s evidence that the beef wellingtons were served from a tray. Ian told the court he did not see where the beef wellingtons came from. During cross-examination, Ian agreed he told police the beef wellingtons were served on a tray. Second, Ian’s evidence that Patterson told her lunch guests she had cancer. During cross-examination, the defence said he told police earlier that Erin announced she had a “suspected cancer”. Ian said he thought Patterson was saying she had cancer. Dr Chris Webster Beale turns to whether Webster said it was a daily struggle to transfer patients from Leongatha hospital to larger hospitals. When asked about whether this was a struggle for regional hospitals, he disagreed. He later accepted he said this earlier and said it was true. Tanya Patterson Beale turns to the topic of whether Tanya noticed a deterioration in the relationship between Erin and Simon Patterson. Tanya testified she said this occurred about 12 months prior to the lunch. In an earlier hearing, she said she noticed this from January 2023. During cross-examination, Tanya agreed she could not give an exact timeframe. Sally Ann Atkinson Beale says the inconsistent evidence relates to when Patterson told Atkinson she purchased the dried mushrooms from the Asian grocer and whether Patterson said she used these previously. Beale says both parties have highlighted inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses compared to statements they had made earlier. He says there are five witnesses that fall under this category. He begins with Simon’s evidence. First, Simon was cross-examined about his prior statement that he considered his relationship with Patterson post-separation to be “strong”. While cross-examined, he said he meant friendship not relationship. Secondly, Simon testified that when Patterson invited him to the lunch she told him she wanted to discuss a serious and important medical issue. When cross-examined about this, Simon said he could not remember the exact words Patterson used. Judge says children’s evidence must be approached with caution Beale returns to a point about tendency evidence. He says if the jury finds Patterson had a tendency to forage for wild mushrooms and use them in meals, or if they find it is a reasonable possibility, “you may consider it increases the possibility” that the death cap mushrooms accidentally ended up in the beef wellingtons. Beale says the jury must consider that Patterson’s children were not cross-examined in the trial due to an agreement by both sides. He says this means they must approach the children’s evidence with caution. Beale tells the jury about the hearsay evidence the trial has heard. He recalls Simon testifying that the day after the lunch Heather told him Patterson served herself on a different coloured plate. Simon said while driving his aunt and uncle to the hospital, Heather asked whether Paterson was short on crockery. Simon also gave evidence that his father, Don, said Patterson told the lunch guests she had cancer. He says Ian testified that Heather remarked that Patterson had a different coloured plate to the guests at the lunch. Beale says it is up to the jury to determine if Heather made these statements and whether Don said this to Simon. If they accept this hearsay evidence, they can use it in their deliberations, Beale says. He says there is a need for caution when considering hearsay evidence from Simon and Ian Wilkinson. “Their evidence is about statements that were made out of court,” he says. Beale says these may be unreliable. Beale says Patterson said her children saw her picking mushrooms. Her children did not recall this when they gave evidence, the court hears. He says the defence has argued Patterson loved mushrooms and her children not remembering this is because they were young kids. The defence said this did not mean Patterson didn’t forage. The defence pointed to images of foraged mushrooms in the dehydrator and images of wild mushrooms recovered from the Samsung tablet that police seized from Patterson’s home. The defence also argued Patterson didn’t hide the fact she bought a dehydrator, instead she broadcast it to her Facebook friends. The defence argued she would not do this if she planned to use it to murder her in-laws. There was no evidence of Patterson having a motive to kill her lunch guests by poisoning them with death cap mushrooms, the defence said. The prosecution said Patterson was a self-confessed liar and the only evidence about her foraging habit came from her. The pictures from the seized SD card was not evidence that Patterson ate the fungi, the prosecution said. The prosecution also pointed to no messages to her Facebook friends about foraging for mushrooms. Beale says the jury must take all this evidence into account to determine if Patterson deliberately put death cap mushrooms into the beef wellingtons. Patterson said she bought dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer but due to their strong smell did not include them in the meal she had planned to, Beale says. She said she put the dried mushrooms she bought from an Asian grocer in the months before the lunch into a Tupperware container that already contained fungi, the court hears. Patterson has admitted to lying about not foraging for mushrooms and lying to police about not owning a dehydrator. She testified that she looked up whether death cap mushrooms grew in the South Gippsland region. Patterson said it was possible she searched for this and ended up on an iNaturalist post about death cap mushrooms. Patterson agreed she told her Facebook friends things about her personal life and what she cooked, including mushrooms. She said she did not know if she discussed foraging and cooking wild mushrooms with them, Beale says. She said she didn’t lie to Dr Laura Muldoon while at Monash hospital, when asked if she put foraged mushrooms in the beef wellingtons, the court hears. Patterson says she did pick wild mushrooms in the period ranging from 28 April 2023 to the day of the lunch on 29 July 2023. Beale turns to the tendency evidence in the case. He says the jury has heard evidence from Patterson about her tendency to forage for wild mushrooms. Patterson said her interest in mushrooms began in 2020 during walks in the first Covid lockdown, the court hears. She said she would buy dried mushrooms to use in cooking from Asian grocery stores while staying in Melbourne during school holidays. Patterson told the jury she found mushroom Facebook groups and would post photos in these, Beale says. Patterson said she began consuming wild mushrooms when she was confident what they were. She said the first time was after she discovered one near her home in Korumburra. Patterson said she bought a dehydrator to preserve mushrooms so she could eat them throughout the year. Beale turns to the “good character” evidence in the case. He says the jury has heard evidence from a range of family and friends who said Patterson was a devoted mother and good daughter-in-law. Simon told the court Patterson was a devoted mother and got along well with his parents, Beale says. He reminds the jury of evidence from Patterson’s online friend Daniela Barkley, who said “I thought she was a wonderful mother”. Another online friend, Jenny Hay, said Patterson’s life revolved around her children and she was an attentive and devoted mother. Patterson also had no criminal history, Beale says. He says if the jury accepts Patterson is of good character they can use it to assess her credibility. “You may be less willing to accept the prosecution’s evidence than if she was not a person of good character,” he says. “You can use it to determine the likelihood she committed the offences. “Of course, this does not mean that you must find her not guilty if you accept she was a person of good character.” He says being of good character cannot alter facts. “You should keep in mind that a person who was previously of good character can commit a crime,” he says. Beale turns to Patterson’s evidence. He says Patterson had no obligation to give evidence in her trial. He says Patterson does not need to prove her innocence. Beale tells the jury: – If jurors find Patterson’s evidence true, they must find her not guilty of the four charges – If jurors are not sure about Patterson’s evidence, they would have reasonable doubt and must find her not guilty of the four charges – “It’s not enough that you prefer the prosecution case to Ms Patterson’s evidence,” he says. He says if they do not believe Patterson’s evidence they can put her testimony aside. But they still need to determine if the prosecution has proved it beyond reasonable doubt on the remaining evidence. Beale touches on the evidence by Patterson’s children and things to consider. The jury was played pre-recorded video evidence from the two children, who cannot be named due to a suppression order. He says the jury should consider that children’s language and mental skills can influence how they respond to and answer questions. A child’s level of development can also determine if they can understand certain concepts, the court hears. Beale says children often have difficulty with concepts involving comparing two things. The jury should also consider that a child may not ask for clarity if they misunderstand a question. Beale says the jury must cast aside any sympathies or prejudices for people involved in the case. He says the issue is not if Patterson’s meal caused the fatal consequences but if the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that she is “criminally responsible” for the consequences. “The fact Patterson told lies must not cause you to be prejudiced against her,” he says. He says while “any reasonable person would feel great sympathy” for the Patterson and Wilkinson families, jurors must not be swayed by emotions. The jury can only consider the evidence presented in the court room, Beale says. “This case has attracted unprecedented media attention and excited much public comment. If any of that has reached your eyes or ears or does so in the coming days ... you must be particularly careful not to let it influence you in any way.” Beale says if jurors overhear their family or friends express an opinion about the case, they must ignore this. He says only the jurors have sat in the jury box throughout the trial and heard all the evidence. “You and you alone are best placed to determine whether the prosecution have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt,” he says. Beale says it is the jury who will decide if Patterson is guilty or not guilty of the three murder charges and one attempted murder charge. “You do that by deciding what the facts are in this case,” he says. “You, alone, are judges of the facts in this case.” He says jurors must apply the law to the facts to determine if Patterson is guilty or not guilty of the charges. Jurors do not need to accept the arguments of the prosecution or defence. “If you do not agree with their view, just put it aside,” he says. Beale has given the jurors an 86-page chronology of exhibits and evidence presented in the trial. He says it is”not homework” but a document the jury can dip into it during their deliberations. “It’s probably best to leave it in the jury room to consult,” he says. The document contains evidence that dates back to 2007. Beale says his charge will include three sections – the principles of the law, issues to consider and the procedure they must follow. He says jurors are the “judges of the facts.” Beale says this means if he omits evidence in his summary it does not mean it is not important. The jurors can determine which arguments have merit regardless of if he mentions it, Beale says. He reminds the 14-person jury that only 12 will determine the verdicts in Patterson’s trial. A balloting off process will determine which jurors deliberate. The jurors have entered the court room in Morwell. Beale is delivering his instructions to the jury, which is called the judge’s charge. Here’s a recap of what the jury heard when the court last sat on Thursday: Patterson’s defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, outlined the prosecution’s top four “convoluted” and “absurd” propositions. Mandy said these were Patterson committing murder without a motive, lying about cancer to entice her lunch guests over, expecting her lunch guests to take her medical issues claim to their graves and thinking she could pass off the lethal meal as a “strange case of gastro”. Patterson’s estranged husband, Simon, accusing her of using a dehydrator to poison his parents on 1 August 2023 – three days after the lunch – was a “turning point” for the accused, Mandy said. He said this was when his client began to panic and lie. Simon denied saying this to Patterson when he testified. Mandy refuted the prosecution’s phone argument. He said Patterson would have either disposed of or reset her original mobile – Phone A – if she had planned the “cold, calculated murders” claimed by the prosecution, but instead she continued using it after the lunch. Mandy pointed to Patterson’s medical tests results from two days after the lunch as evidence she became unwell from the beef wellington meal. He pointed to her low potassium, elevated hemoglobin level and elevated fibrinogen, which he said did not rely on self-reports. Welcome to day 36 of Erin Patterson’s triple murder trial. We’re expecting the trial to resume from 10.30am. Justice Christopher Beale will begin instructing the jurors this morning before they begin their deliberations. The jury will not retire to consider its verdict until Wednesday at the earliest. Patterson, 50, faces three charges of murder and one charge of attempted murder relating to a beef wellington lunch she served at her house in Leongatha, in regional Victoria, on 29 July 2023. She is accused of murdering her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and her estranged husband’s aunt, Heather Wilkinson. The attempted murder charge relates to Heather’s husband, Ian. She has pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution alleges Patterson deliberately poisoned her lunch guests with “murderous intent” but her lawyers say the poisoning was a tragic accident.