Defence slams ‘absurd’ theories in deadly mushroom case
Tara Cosoleto |
Jurors should not find mushroom cook Erin Patterson guilty of three murders because she told some lies, her barrister has argued while criticising the prosecution’s “absurd” theories.
Colin Mandy SC on Wednesday instead encouraged the Victorian Supreme Court jury to consider the evidence logically and rationally as he completed a second day of closing arguments.
He pointed to the lie Patterson told her lunch guests about having a cancerous lump on her elbow, saying jurors should not jump from that deception to finding her guilty of murder.
“She’s not on trial for lying,” Mr Mandy said.
“This is not a court of moral judgment.”
Prosecutors allege Patterson, 50, intentionally poisoned her former in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, Gail’s sister Heather and Heather’s husband Ian Wilkinson.
Don, Gail and Heather all died after consuming the July 29, 2023 beef Wellington lunch served by Patterson at her home in regional Victoria, while Ian survived.
She has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and one count of attempted murder.
Prosecutors alleged Patterson made up the cancer claim so there would be a reason to have guests over for lunch.
But Mr Mandy argued that proposition was “illogical and irrational” as the guests were only told the lie after the beef Wellingtons were eaten.
“If this was a ruse, there was no need to have the conversation because the deed – on the crown case, the consumption of the food – had already happened,” he said.
“There was absolutely no need for Erin to say anything about cancer if that was a ruse.”
The defence barrister conceded it was a “stupid” lie but it was made because Patterson was embarrassed about her plans to undergo weight-loss procedures.
Although she never had any surgery, Mr Mandy told the jury Patterson did have an appointment scheduled with a clinic that performed liposuction.
The barrister also criticised the prosecution’s assertion that Patterson made a fifth deadly beef Wellington parcel for her ex-husband Simon.
He pulled out of the lunch the night before and prosecutors alleged Patterson intended to kill him as well.
“We say that is an absurd theory,” Mr Mandy said.
That would mean Patterson was planning to kill her children’s father and their grandparents, and she would likely be removed as a parent, he said.
“There’s no possible prospect Erin wanted to destroy her whole world, her whole life,” Mr Mandy said.
The barrister also urged the jury to reject Ian Wilkinson’s evidence about mismatched plates being used at the lunch.
Mr Wilkinson told the jury Patterson served her own meal on a orange-tan coloured plate, while her guests all received their beef Wellingtons on grey plates.
Mr Mandy told the jury Mr Wilkinson must have been honestly mistaken because the evidence from Simon and the Patterson children showed Erin did not own those plates.
A police raid of the Leongatha house also did not locate the plates as Mr Wilkinson described, he said.
Mr Mandy also suggested it was illogical to have the safe meal distinguished by its serving plate rather than by marking the pastry before it was cooked.
He maintained Patterson also ate the poisoned beef Wellington but she had less-severe symptoms because she was younger, she weighed more and she threw up after the lunch.
“Those combination of reasons is why we suggest Erin would have reacted much better from consuming the same meal,” the defence barrister said.
Mr Mandy raised the issue of an argument Patterson had in December 2022 with her ex-husband Simon over child support and the comments she made to Facebook friends about her in-laws.
In those messages, Patterson stated “this family, I swear to f***ing God” and “I’m sick of this shit, I want nothing to do with them”.
Mr Mandy said she regretted using the words but the tension was an aberration from her usual interactions with her in-laws.
The trial continues on Thursday.
AAP
