The jury within the high-profile homicide trial of an Australian girl accused of cooking a lethal mushroom lunch for kin has retired to resolve her destiny.
Erin Patterson, 50, has pleaded not responsible to 4 prices – three of homicide and one among tried homicide – over the meat Wellington lunch at her regional Victorian home in July 2023.
The prosecution have claimed Ms Patterson knowingly put poisonous loss of life cap mushrooms into the home-cooked meal, earlier than mendacity to police and disposing of proof.
However the defence argue Ms Patterson by chance included the toxic fungi within the dish and solely lied as a result of she panicked after hurting individuals she liked.
Ms Patterson’s in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, each 70, together with Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson, 66, all fell sick 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 have been determined by a poll earlier than the group retired for deliberations.
In her closing arguments, prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC stated Ms Patterson has “informed so many lies it is onerous 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 determination to dump a meals dehydrator used to organize the meal, have been proof of her guilt, they argued.
“She has informed 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 fastidiously constructed narrative to suit with the proof – nearly.”
There was no “explicit motive” for the alleged crime, Dr Rogers informed the courtroom, however the jury ought to nonetheless have “no problem” in rejecting the argument “this was all a horrible foraging accident”.
Nevertheless, the defence argued the shortage of motive was key. Ms Patterson had no cause to kill her friends, they stated.
Throughout Ms Patterson’s proof, she informed 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 informed the courtroom she had suffered from bulimia for years, and had made herself throw up after the meat Wellington meal – one thing her defence group says explains why she didn’t grow to be 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 interest 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 drive “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 informed the jury members they alone are the “judges of the details on this case”.
He stated they need to not convict Ms Patterson merely for mendacity, as there are “all kinds of the reason why an individual may behave in a approach that makes the individual look responsible”.
He added that whereas “any affordable individual 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 are going to keep in supervised lodging the place they are going to have little to no contact with the surface world till they’ve reached a call.
