An Australian woman, Erin Patterson, has admitted in court to foraging wild mushrooms, misleading authorities, and disposing of potential evidence, but maintains that the fatal poisoning of her relatives was a “terrible accident” and not intentional, according to proceedings at the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Ms Patterson, 50, is on trial in Morwell, a small Victorian town, in a case expected to span six weeks. She faces charges for the alleged murder of three family members and the attempted murder of a fourth, following a meal she prepared in July 2023.
The incident in question centres on a beef wellington lunch reportedly containing poisonous death cap mushrooms. Ms Patterson, who has pleaded not guilty, claims she “panicked” after unwittingly serving the toxic meal to loved ones.
Three guests—Don Patterson, 70, and Gail Patterson, 70, her former in-laws, and Heather Wilkinson, 66, Gail’s sister—died in hospital after the meal. A fourth guest, local pastor Ian Wilkinson, survived following extended hospital treatment.
The court heard there was no dispute that the dish comprised death cap mushrooms, resulting in severe illness for those who consumed it.
Justice Christopher Beale addressed the jury, stating, “The overarching issue is whether she intended to kill or cause very serious injury.”
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC, in her opening remarks, recounted that the gathering was initially believed to be a tragic instance of food poisoning, but she alleges Ms Patterson “deliberately poisoned” her guests with “murderous intent”. Prosecutors claim the gathering was arranged under the pretext of Ms Patterson sharing a cancer diagnosis—an assertion the defence admits was false.
The prosecution further alleged Ms Patterson visited a location near her Leongatha home known for death cap mushroom sightings and later took steps to obscure her actions, such as discarding a food dehydrator possibly used in preparing the meal and misleading police regarding the source of the mushrooms.
Dr Rogers acknowledged the question of motive may remain unresolved for the jury, stating, “You do not have to be satisfied what the motive was, or even that there was one.”
Jurors are expected to hear testimony from Mr Wilkinson, Simon Patterson (Ms Patterson’s estranged husband), medical personnel, and police investigators.
The defence, led by Colin Mandy, urged jurors to reserve judgment, reminding them that no evidence had yet been formally presented. He suggested that Ms Patterson’s post-incident actions—viewed as suspicious by the prosecution—were the result of panic and distress rather than malice.
“Might people say or do things that are not well thought out, and might make them look bad?” he asked the jury, reinforcing the defence position that Patterson did not serve poisoned food intentionally and what transpired was a “tragedy, a terrible accident.”
The trial also heard for the first time detailed allegations regarding events leading up to the ill-fated lunch. Ms Patterson and her husband Simon had separated amicably, but Simon had initially intended to attend the meal, withdrawing at the last moment due to discomfort over their changing relationship. This reportedly disappointed Ms Patterson, who stressed the effort she put into the lunch.
According to testimony, Ms Patterson served her guests on large grey plates, using a distinct tan-orange plate for herself, prompting questions from guests at the time. The group reportedly discussed her purported illness over the meal—described as beef wellington, mashed potatoes, and green beans—before departing that afternoon. All attendees, except Ms Patterson, soon became unwell; within a day, the four affected guests sought hospital treatment.
Ms Patterson presented herself to hospital claiming similar symptoms but refused admission. A treating doctor, concerned for her wellbeing, contacted police. The court heard that Ms Patterson also resisted seeking medical evaluation for her children, despite claims they ate leftovers (excluding mushrooms).
In closing, the defence stressed the importance of basing deliberations solely on evidence, reminding the jury: “Lots of people might have opinions or theories, but they aren’t based on the evidence … None of that should have any bearing on your decision.”