16 hours ago
7
Key events Show key events only Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature
Rogers says Simon gave evidence that on 16 July 2023 – two weeks prior to the lunch – Patterson approached him after a church service and said she had some important medical news she wanted advice on and how to break it to the children.
Patterson says she did approach Simon after the service but rejects saying these words.
Rogers says Simon recalled Patterson saying she was inviting him to lunch as well as his parents, Don and Gail, and his aunt and uncle, Heather and Ian.
Patterson agrees she invited Simon to lunch.
Patterson rejects that she told Simon she did not want their children to attend the lunch.
Patterson rejects evidence of Facebook friend
Rogers says Patterson’s Facebook friend Christine Hunt gave evidence Patterson painted Simon as a father who was “coercive”. Patterson rejects that she told Hunt this.
Rogers says Hunt’s evidence was also that Simon disagreed with her a lot, particularly in response to medical issues of their children. Patterson rejects this.
Rogers says child protection worker, Katrina Cripps, gave evidence that Patterson told her Simon had been “mean” to her “but never nasty”.
“I think I did say that,” Patterson says.
Patterson ‘ashamed’ of ‘fuck em’ text message
Rogers shows the court another Facebook message in a group chat on 6 December 2022 with her online friends. In the message, Patterson said her in-laws would not step in to help resolve her dispute with Simon. She then wrote “so fuck em” in relation to Don and Gail.
Patterson says:
I wrote that and I was venting and I was frustrated.
I’m ashamed that I wrote that.
Patterson and Simon’s interactions were ‘strained’, court hears
Rogers says Patterson’s son gave evidence that while she and Simon were married the interactions prior to the lunch were “very negative”.
Asked if she agrees with the observation, Patterson says the pair’s interactions were “strained”.
Roger shows a Facebook message Patterson sent to her Facebook friends on 6 December 2022. In the message she wrote: “This family I swear to fucking god.”
“This expressed your true feelings about Don and Gail,” Rogers says.
“No,” Patterson says.
Patterson also rejects Rogers’ suggestion that a message on the same day where she said Don and Gail were a “lost cause” reflected her true feelings towards them.
Patterson says she told ex-partner before she moved children to a new school
Rogers takes Patterson to Facebook messages she sent to her online friends in a group chat on 7 December 2022.
In the message, Patterson says if Simon will not be involved in paying for school fees she can “choose their school all by myself”.
Rogers asks if Patterson’s evidence is still that she consulted Simon before she moved her children to a new school.
“I did advise. I did tell him,” Patterson says.
Patterson denies she was ‘angry’ with her in-laws
Rogers suggests Patterson was “angry” that her in-laws would not adjudicate the dispute between her and Simon.
Patterson says she was not angry.
Rogers says Patterson did not tell Simon she was planning to move their children to a new school.
Rogers says: “I suggest you just did it without notice to him. Correct or incorrect?”
Patterson rejects this.
Patterson denies attempting to persuade in-laws in group chat messages
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC is cross-examining Patterson.
Patterson is seated in the witness box, dressed in a dark top with white polka dots.
Rogers takes Patterson to a group chat she had with Simon and his parents, Don and Gail. The messages, shown to the court yesterday, are from December 2022 and on the app Signal.
In the messages, the group are discussing financial arrangements for their children, including their school fees.
Yesterday, Patterson said in the messages she was not trying to get her in-laws to persuade their son, Simon, to pay half of Patterson and Simon’s children’s school fees.
Rogers asks Patterson if this is still her answer. Patterson says it is.
She says she was trying to get her in-laws to “mediate” the issue.
“I was trying to ask Don and Gail to help Simon and I communicate about this better,” Patterson says.
The jurors have entered the courtroom in Morwell.
What the jury heard on Thursday
As we wait for today’s proceedings to get under way, here’s a recap of what the jury heard on Thursday – day 27 of the trial.
-
Under cross-examination, Erin Patterson denied deliberately foraging death cap mushrooms, placing them in a beef wellington she served her guests and weighing them to calculate the fatal dose for a person.
-
Patterson denied telling her lunch guest she had been diagnosed with cancer. Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC said she told her lunch guests she had cancer. Patterson replied: “I don’t agree.” Earlier, she said she thought she talked about “undergoing some testing” at lunch.
-
Patterson said she lied to police about dehydrating mushrooms and food because she was “afraid” of being “held responsible”.
-
Patterson was cross-examined on correspondence with her mother-in-law, Gail Patterson, in the lead-up to the lunch about medical appointments that did not occur. During the questioning by Rogers, Patterson acknowledged she lied about appointments, including for a needle biopsy.
-
Justice Christopher Beale told the jury the timeline of the trial – initially scheduled for up to six weeks – had blown out by at least a fortnight.
Good morning
Welcome to day 28 of Erin Patterson’s triple murder trial.
Patterson, who began testifying on Monday afternoon, will return to the witness box for a fifth day.
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC will continue cross-examining Patterson.
The trial, which is in its sixth week, will resume from 10.30am. The court will adjourn early today, at 1pm.
Patterson, 50, faces three charges of murder and one charge of attempted murder relating to a beef wellington lunch she served at her house in Leongatha, in regional Victoria, on 29 July 2023.
She is accused of murdering her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and her estranged husband’s aunt, Heather Wilkinson. The attempted murder charge relates to Heather’s husband, Ian.
She has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The prosecution alleges Patterson deliberately poisoned her lunch guests with “murderous intent” but her lawyers say the poisoning was a tragic accident.
