Defense Argues Against Guilt in Mushroom Poisoning Case

In a high-profile trial, the defense team for Erin Patterson is strongly contesting the prosecution’s case, urging jurors not to convict based on circumstantial evidence. The barrister emphasized the need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as the jury prepares for deliberation.

Defense Paints Picture of Doubt

Colin Mandy SC, defending Patterson, presented his closing arguments, imploring the jury to find Patterson innocent of the triple murder charges. He reminded the court that the prosecution needed to clear the high bar of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He said the jury should find Patterson not guilty, considering the actual evidence presented.

The case concerns the deaths of Don and Gail Patterson, Gail’s sister Heather, and Heather’s husband Ian Wilkinson. They died after consuming a beef Wellington lunch on July 29, 2023, prepared by Patterson. Ian survived the meal.

“The prosecution can’t get over that high bar of beyond reasonable doubt,” Mandy said in his last remarks in the marathon trial in regional Victoria.

—Colin Mandy SC

Mandy contended that his client had no motive to kill the guests. He critiqued the prosecution’s selectivity in using evidence to fit their narrative. For instance, the defense highlighted that 43% of murder convictions in Australia in 2022-23 were a result of circumstantial evidence (Australian Bureau of Statistics).

Challenging the Prosecution’s Strategy

The defense critiqued the use of a jigsaw puzzle analogy by prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC, which suggested piecing together fragments of evidence to establish guilt. Mandy countered with the high-jump analogy, insisting prosecutors needed to surpass the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

He urged the jury to find Patterson not guilty if they considered it merely possible that she intentionally poisoned the beef Wellingtons. He added that the same verdict should apply if there was a reasonable possibility it was an accident. He stated that her intent at the time of the meal should be the determining factor, not her subsequent actions and false statements.

Mandy noted her false claims of a cancerous lump and lies about a dehydrator, explaining these as reactions of panic caused by the illnesses of her loved ones. He also challenged aspects of the prosecution’s case, including Patterson’s reported illness after the lunch. He pointed to hospital blood test results showing low potassium, elevated haemoglobin, and elevated fibrinogen.

The defense also disputed the prosecution’s interpretation of phone-tower data, suggesting Patterson drove along the Bass Highway after leaving the hospital. Mandy highlighted that her phone connected to the Outtrim base station for just under three minutes.

The jury has been dismissed and will begin deliberations next week, following the judge’s final instructions.