The trial of Erin Patterson, a 50-year-old woman from Victoria, Australia, has captivated audiences across the world. Accused of serving a meal laced with death cap mushrooms that resulted in three fatalities and one severe illness, Patterson faces charges on three counts of murder and one of attempted murder. She has pleaded not guilty, asserting that the incident was a tragic accident.
Australia Correspondent Aziz Al Sa'afin breaks down Patterson's final day in the witness box, the timeline of events, key witnesses and arguments from both the prosecution and defence.
Evidence so far in the trial of Erin Patterson, the Australian woman accused of murdering three people with beef Wellingtons. (Source: 1News)
Refresher: timeline of events
- 29 July 2023: Erin Patterson hosts a lunch at her home, serving beef Wellington to her former in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister and brother-in-law, Heather and Ian Wilkinson. All four guests fall ill within 24 hours.
- 4 August 2023: Don and Gail Patterson, both 70, and Heather Wilkinson, 66, succumb to symptoms consistent with death cap mushroom poisoning. Ian Wilkinson, 71, survives after intensive medical treatment.
- 3 November 2023: Erin Patterson is arrested and charged with three counts of murder and five counts of attempted murder. The additional attempted murder charges, alleging prior attempts to poison her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, are later dropped.
- 29 April 2025: The trial commences at the Supreme Court in Morwell, Victoria.
Key people involved in the case:
- Erin Patterson: The accused, who maintains her innocence, claiming the inclusion of death cap mushrooms in the meal was accidental.
- Don and Gail Patterson: Erin's former parents-in-law, who died following the lunch.
- Heather Wilkinson: Gail's sister, also deceased.
- Ian Wilkinson: Heather's husband and the sole survivor of the incident.
- Simon Patterson: Erin's estranged husband, who did not attend the lunch.
- Nanette Rogers SC: Lead prosecutor, presenting evidence suggesting premeditation.
- Colin Mandy SC: Defence barrister, arguing the incident was a tragic accident.
The Prosecution's argument
The prosecution alleges that Erin Patterson intentionally served a meal containing death cap mushrooms to her relatives. Key points include:
- Motive: Strained relationships with her in-laws and estranged husband.
- Evidence of intent:
- Internet searches related to death cap mushrooms.
- Purchase of a food dehydrator shortly before the incident, later discarded.
- Discrepancies in her account of sourcing mushrooms from an Asian grocer.
- Behavior post-incident:
- Alleged fabrication of illness symptoms.
- Use of a different coloured plate for herself during the meal.
- Remote wiping of a mobile phone after police seizure.
The Defence's argument
The defence contends that the deaths were accidental, emphasising:
Lack of Intent: Erin Patterson claims she used a mix of store-bought and foraged mushrooms without knowledge of their toxicity.
Personal Illness: She asserts that she also fell ill after the meal, indicating no intent to harm.
Emotional Testimony: Patterson expressed love for her in-laws and denied any desire to harm them.
Disposal of Dehydrator: She stated she discarded the dehydrator out of fear of being blamed, not to destroy evidence.
'Disagree', 'Disagree', Disagree' - Patterson ends testimony with a triple denial
Erin Patterson has wrapped up her time in the witness box, closing out a tense week of questioning with firm denials of the Crown’s central allegations.
Under cross-examination, she repeatedly rejected suggestions she intentionally served death cap mushrooms to her former in-laws, or that she deliberately misled investigators after the lunch that left three people dead and one critically ill.
“I did not intend to poison anyone,” she told the jury, her voice steady but measured. “I did not intend to harm anyone. I did not intend to mislead anyone.”
The prosecution pressed her on key inconsistencies in her story, including the factory resets on her phone, the source of the mushrooms, and her decision to throw out the food dehydrator. At each turn, Patterson maintained it was a tragic accident, not a calculated act.
Her final day of evidence also saw her push back on previous witness accounts, including from the only survivor, her son and a local GP. She told the jury they were mistaken - not malicious, but wrong.
Three key moments from week seven
Simon Patterson tells the court about their strained relationship and turning down an invite to the fatal lunch. (Source: 1News)
As Erin Patterson continued to give evidence in her own defence, prosecutors ramped up their efforts to poke holes in her story. This week in court, three major areas came under the spotlight.
1. The Phone Wipe: Three factory resets and a missing device
One of the biggest points of contention raised this week related to Patterson’s mobile phones - particularly the one she handed to police and the one she allegedly didn’t.
Prosecutors said the phone Patterson gave investigators (known as “Phone B” ) had been factory reset three times in the days following the fatal lunch. They alleged this was an attempt to erase incriminating evidence and to pass the device off as her main phone.
Patterson admitted to the resets but denied a cover-up. Instead, she told the court:
- She reset it on August 2 to clear her son’s old data, after realising the damaged phone still worked.
- On August 5, she panicked during a police search and wiped it again saying it contained mushroom and dehydrator photos she didn’t want them to see.
- The third reset on August 6 was done remotely out of "curiosity", she said, to see if the phone was still online.
But prosecutors said there was a "simpler explanation": She was hiding her real phone, “Phone A,” and trying to cover her tracks.
They presented phone records showing that the SIM card inside "Phone A" was active until between 12:01pm and 1:45pm on August 5 - the same time police were searching her home. After that, the phone lost connection to the network and has not been located since.
It was agreed in court that several things could explain the sudden disconnection:
- The SIM card being physically removed from the phone
- The phone battery being taken out or dying
- The phone being damaged in a way that cut power or signal
Prosecutors suggested Patterson took the opportunity to remove the SIM card while she was left alone to call her lawyer during the police search. She denied that saying she wasn’t given privacy until around 2pm after the disconnection window.
2. The Asian Grocer: "Are you making this up as you go?"
Another one of Patterson’s central claims was she used a mix of mushrooms from a local supermarket and an Asian grocery store in Mount Waverley. But prosecutors spent much of this week challenging the credibility of that version of events.
Patterson told the court she bought mushrooms from a shop near the town of Loch and also from a grocer in Mount Waverley. But when pressed on details, her account grew vague.
The prosecution alleged the Asian Grocer mentioned in Patterson's testimony did not exist and added she sent the Health Department on a "wild goose chase.
Patterson rejected the claim saying: “I clarified … I think I made it clear I wasn’t sure. I was trying to be helpful.”
Following more questioning about the lunch and the mushrooms that were used, Dr Rogers asked directly: “Are you making this up as you go along, Ms Patterson?” to which Patterson said “No”.
Prosecutors then pointed to data showing Patterson drove to the town of Loch where death caps had previously been spotted hours before buying a food dehydrator. Their allegation is Patterson wasn’t shopping, she was foraging.
Patterson denied and told the court: “The only part of that that is true is that I bought a dehydrator."
3. The clashing testimony: Patterson vs. the witnesses
Patterson also directly disputed claims made by several earlier witnesses, including some of the most significant in the trial so far.
Ian Wilkinson, the sole survivor of the fatal lunch, told the court in week two of the trial Patterson served herself from a different-coloured plate than the guests. But this week she flatly rejected that claim saying, “Ian is incorrect".
She also challenged her own son’s testimony. In a police interview played to the court, he recalled his mother drinking coffee after the lunch. It was a detail she denied, claiming he had a different memory of what happened after the lunch and added he often saw her drinking coffee which could explain why he said that to police.
Another contradiction came in relation to a local Leongatha doctor who testified that Patterson failed to return urgent calls about her children’s health and well being in the aftermath of the poisonings. Patterson claimed she did respond saying, “I tried to call back twice."
SHARE ME