Patterson did not share realisation foraged mushrooms may have been in meal
Rogers takes Patterson to a discussion she and Simon had on 1 August 2023 while at Monash hospital. Patterson said Simon asked her if she had used a dehydrator to poison his parents.
Patterson told the court earlier this week this conversation caused her to reflect on “what might have happened”.
Patterson agrees on this date she realised foraged mushrooms may have been in a Tupperware container storing store-bought mushrooms and used in the beef wellingtons.
Rogers says she never told a medical professional or anyone else that foraged mushrooms may have been used in the meal. Patterson agrees.
Rogers says Patterson’s realisation on 1 August 2023 was days before anyone had died.
Patterson agrees she did not tell anyone about her realisation after this date.
Rogers says after her realisation, Patterson disposed of the dehydrator. Patterson agrees.
Key events
Patterson tearfully says she wanted to thank the Wilkinsons ‘for being good to me over the years’
Rogers turns to Patterson’s relationship with Simon’s maternal aunt, Heather Wilkinson and her husband, Ian Wilkinson.
Rogers takes the court through Ian’s evidence. He described his relationship with Patterson as “more like acquaintances” and said they did not see each other frequently.
Patterson agrees and says they mainly saw each other and church.
Asked about Ian’s evidence that Heather and Patterson were not close, she says “that’s probably fair”.
Patterson agrees Heather and Ian had not been to her house before as a couple.
Patterson says Heather had been to her house before.
Rogers asks why she invited Heather and Ian to the fateful lunch on 29 July 2023.
Patterson says there were a “few reasons”:
Ian had been my pastor for years and years and I would see and speak with Ian and Heather a lot after church and I really liked them … I wanted to have a stronger relationship with them.
She recalls Gail telling her, while at Patterson’s Leongatha home in June, that Heather would love to see her garden. She says:
And I thought, oh it’s a great opportunity to invite Heather and Ian the next time I have Don and Gail for lunch.”
Patterson becomes teary as she says she wanted to “say thank you for being good to me over the years”. She continues:
Heather helped me a lot when [my daughter] was little… I was shy and I didn’t really know many people. Heather would sit with me …
Patterson reaches for a tissue.
Rogers asks about Simon’s evidence about a phone call with Patterson the day after the lunch – 30 July 2023.
Patterson rejects Rogers’ suggestion that she never asked how unwell Don and Gail were at this point.
Patterson denies having ‘two faces’ regarding relationship with Simon’s parents
Rogers says she suggests Patterson didn’t love Don and Gail and that they took Simon’s side in their child support dispute.
“That’s not true,” Patterson says.
Rogers says those feelings continued.
“Incorrect,” Patterson says.
Rogers says Patterson had “two faces”. She says Patterson had a “public face of appearing to have a good relationship with Don and Gail” which she showed to people like Simon and his siblings.
Patterson says: “I had a good relationship with Don and Gail.”
Rogers says: “I suggest your private face was the one you showed in your Facebook messenger use. Correct or incorrect?”
“Incorrect,” Patterson replies.
Rogers presses further: “And how you truly felt about Don and Gail was how you expressed it in your Facebook messages …”
“Incorrect,” Patterson says.
A visibly upset Patterson is biting her lower lip.
Patterson agrees it was ‘unusual’ to have lunch guests
Rogers says Cripps testified that Patterson told her she had a good relationship with Don and Gail but felt “isolated” from her in-laws recently.
Patterson says it is likely she said this.
She says she told Cripps they treated her like a “daughter”, not a “daughter-in-law”.
Rogers takes Patterson to the evidence of Prof Rhonda Stuart, a doctor at Monash hospital. Stuart testified that while in hospital Patterson told her having lunch with Simon’s relatives was not “unusual”.
Rogers asks if it was “unusual” for Patterson to invite people to her house for lunch at this time.
“Yes, that’s probably true,” Patterson says.
Rogers says the fateful lunch was a “special” meal. Patterson agrees she wanted it to be a special meal.
Patterson says she has no memory of having a conversation with Stuart.
Patterson says she cannot remember telling child protection worker about not being invited to family events
Rogers says child protection worker Katrina Cripps gave evidence on 1 August 2023 Patterson said she “loved Don and Gail” and had a good relationship with her in-laws until recently. Patterson agrees.
Cripps said Patterson also told her that since the relationship with Simon had changed she thought he was isolating her from his family.
Patterson says she “probably did tell her that”.
Cripps said Patterson told her she was no longer invited to the family events she would normally attend. Patterson says she “thinks” Cripps is wrong as she cannot specifically remember saying this.
Patterson did not share realisation foraged mushrooms may have been in meal
Rogers takes Patterson to a discussion she and Simon had on 1 August 2023 while at Monash hospital. Patterson said Simon asked her if she had used a dehydrator to poison his parents.
Patterson told the court earlier this week this conversation caused her to reflect on “what might have happened”.
Patterson agrees on this date she realised foraged mushrooms may have been in a Tupperware container storing store-bought mushrooms and used in the beef wellingtons.
Rogers says she never told a medical professional or anyone else that foraged mushrooms may have been used in the meal. Patterson agrees.
Rogers says Patterson’s realisation on 1 August 2023 was days before anyone had died.
Patterson agrees she did not tell anyone about her realisation after this date.
Rogers says after her realisation, Patterson disposed of the dehydrator. Patterson agrees.
Patterson says medical issues to be discussed at the lunch related to gastric bypass surgery
Regarding the lunch invitation, Patterson says:
My memory is I said to him [Simon] something like: there’s some medical stuff I’ll talk to you about then.
Patterson says she did not tell Simon she needed advice on how to break it to the children.
Rogers takes Patterson back to the message she sent Simon the day before the lunch, saying that she would not be able to host a “lunch like this again for some time”.
Patterson agrees this phrase was a reference to medical issues.
Rogers says Patterson lied to Simon on 16 July 2023 when she said she had some medical issues to discuss.
“No, that wasn’t a lie,” Patterson says.
Patterson says she was planning to have gastric bypass surgery for weight loss. Patterson says she had a pre-surgery appointment booked for this at the Enrich clinic in Melbourne. She says she does not remember the date of this appointment.
Rogers says she will return to this topic later.
Patterson denies ‘purpose’ of lunch was to discuss medical advice
Rogers says Patterson did not want her children to be present at the lunch so they would not eat the meal she was planning to serve her lunch guests.
“No, that’s not true,” Patterson says.
Rogers shows the court a message Simon sent on 28 July 2023 – the day prior to the lunch. In it, Simon says he feels “too uncomfortable” to attend the lunch but is happy to discuss Patterson’s “health” and the “implications” of it.
Rogers says Simon’s reference to Patterson’s health is a direct reference to her telling him on 16 July 2023 that she had important medical news.
“I disagree,” Patterson replies.
In Patterson’s reply, she said Simon declining the lunch invite was disappointing. She said she may not be able to host a lunch like this “for a long time”.
Rogers says Patterson wrote those words to make it seem like the “medical issue was the reason”. She says Patterson was “purporting” to refer to the medical issues she told him about on 16 July 2023.
Patterson says she did tell Simon on 16 July 2023 that she wanted to discuss medical things at the lunch.
Patterson says in her earlier evidence, she was rejecting that the medical issue was “important” and that she needed advice on how to break it to the children.
“I wasn’t after advice,” she says.
Patterson says she did want to discuss medical advice but it was not the “purpose” of the lunch. She says:
I can’t remember the precise words but all I can tell you is it was not why I was inviting him.
Patterson denies telling ex-partner she had important medical news she wanted advice on
Rogers says Simon gave evidence that on 16 July 2023 – two weeks prior to the lunch – Patterson approached him after a church service and said she had some important medical news she wanted advice on and how to break it to the children.
Patterson says she did approach Simon after the service but rejects saying these words.
Rogers says Simon recalled Patterson saying she was inviting him to lunch as well as his parents, Don and Gail, and his aunt and uncle, Heather and Ian.
Patterson agrees she invited Simon to lunch.
Patterson rejects that she told Simon she did not want their children to attend the lunch.
Patterson rejects evidence of Facebook friend
Rogers says Patterson’s Facebook friend Christine Hunt gave evidence Patterson painted Simon as a father who was “coercive”. Patterson rejects that she told Hunt this.
Rogers says Hunt’s evidence was also that Simon disagreed with her a lot, particularly in response to medical issues of their children. Patterson rejects this.
Rogers says child protection worker, Katrina Cripps, gave evidence that Patterson told her Simon had been “mean” to her “but never nasty”.
“I think I did say that,” Patterson says.
Patterson ‘ashamed’ of ‘fuck em’ text message
Rogers shows the court another Facebook message in a group chat on 6 December 2022 with her online friends. In the message, Patterson said her in-laws would not step in to help resolve her dispute with Simon. She then wrote “so fuck em” in relation to Don and Gail.
Patterson says:
I wrote that and I was venting and I was frustrated.
I’m ashamed that I wrote that.
Patterson and Simon’s interactions were ‘strained’, court hears
Rogers says Patterson’s son gave evidence that while she and Simon were married the interactions prior to the lunch were “very negative”.
Asked if she agrees with the observation, Patterson says the pair’s interactions were “strained”.
Roger shows a Facebook message Patterson sent to her Facebook friends on 6 December 2022. In the message she wrote: “This family I swear to fucking god.”
“This expressed your true feelings about Don and Gail,” Rogers says.
“No,” Patterson says.
Patterson also rejects Rogers’ suggestion that a message on the same day where she said Don and Gail were a “lost cause” reflected her true feelings towards them.
Patterson says she told ex-partner before she moved children to a new school
Rogers takes Patterson to Facebook messages she sent to her online friends in a group chat on 7 December 2022.
In the message, Patterson says if Simon will not be involved in paying for school fees she can “choose their school all by myself”.
Rogers asks if Patterson’s evidence is still that she consulted Simon before she moved her children to a new school.
“I did advise. I did tell him,” Patterson says.
Patterson denies she was ‘angry’ with her in-laws
Rogers suggests Patterson was “angry” that her in-laws would not adjudicate the dispute between her and Simon.
Patterson says she was not angry.
Rogers says Patterson did not tell Simon she was planning to move their children to a new school.
Rogers says: “I suggest you just did it without notice to him. Correct or incorrect?”
Patterson rejects this.
Patterson denies attempting to persuade in-laws in group chat messages
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC is cross-examining Patterson.
Patterson is seated in the witness box, dressed in a dark top with white polka dots.
Rogers takes Patterson to a group chat she had with Simon and his parents, Don and Gail. The messages, shown to the court yesterday, are from December 2022 and on the app Signal.
In the messages, the group are discussing financial arrangements for their children, including their school fees.
Yesterday, Patterson said in the messages she was not trying to get her in-laws to persuade their son, Simon, to pay half of Patterson and Simon’s children’s school fees.
Rogers asks Patterson if this is still her answer. Patterson says it is.
She says she was trying to get her in-laws to “mediate” the issue.
“I was trying to ask Don and Gail to help Simon and I communicate about this better,” Patterson says.
The jurors have entered the courtroom in Morwell.
What the jury heard on Thursday
As we wait for today’s proceedings to get under way, here’s a recap of what the jury heard on Thursday – day 27 of the trial.
-
Under cross-examination, Erin Patterson denied deliberately foraging death cap mushrooms, placing them in a beef wellington she served her guests and weighing them to calculate the fatal dose for a person.
-
Patterson denied telling her lunch guest she had been diagnosed with cancer. Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC said she told her lunch guests she had cancer. Patterson replied: “I don’t agree.” Earlier, she said she thought she talked about “undergoing some testing” at lunch.
-
Patterson said she lied to police about dehydrating mushrooms and food because she was “afraid” of being “held responsible”.
-
Patterson was cross-examined on correspondence with her mother-in-law, Gail Patterson, in the lead-up to the lunch about medical appointments that did not occur. During the questioning by Rogers, Patterson acknowledged she lied about appointments, including for a needle biopsy.
-
Justice Christopher Beale told the jury the timeline of the trial – initially scheduled for up to six weeks – had blown out by at least a fortnight.
Good morning
Welcome to day 28 of Erin Patterson’s triple murder trial.
Patterson, who began testifying on Monday afternoon, will return to the witness box for a fifth day.
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC will continue cross-examining Patterson.
The trial, which is in its sixth week, will resume from 10.30am. The court will adjourn early today, at 1pm.
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.
#Australia #mushroom #trial #live #Erin #Patterson #realisation #foraged #mushrooms #lunch #meal #court #hears #Victoria
