1 day ago
7
Erin Patterson watched herself on a screen, her voice filling court room four of the Latrobe Valley law courts in Morwell.
She had done little but stand up and sit down, and watch on silently, throughout the first 20 days of her triple murder trial, as more than 50 witnesses catalogued their own role in her story.
But now she would be heard, as her voice – distorted and tinny – bounced around the court on 27 May. The video had been taken in the Wonthaggi police station on 5 August 2023, a week after the beef wellington lunch.
Patterson, 50, faces three charges of murder and one charge of attempted murder relating to poisoning her four lunch guests – relatives of her estranged husband, Simon Patterson – with the lunch at her house in Leongatha, Victoria, on 29 July 2023.
Patterson has pleaded not guilty to murdering Simon’s parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and his aunt Heather Wilkinson, and attempting to murder Ian Wilkinson, Simon’s uncle and Heather’s husband.
Lawyers for Patterson say the death cap mushroom poisoning was a tragic and terrible accident.
As much as any moment in the trial to date, Patterson’s police interview helped give her shape. It filled the blank spaces surrounding the dozens of text messages read into court, or the flattened images of her on CCTV, or the observations of witnesses, speaking about what she had been like before the lunch, or how she acted after.
The 21-minute interview was beamed on to at least six screens throughout the court, including a small one to Patterson’s left in the dock.
“Donald underwent a transplant last night … and his condition is still extremely critical as of last report,” Det Leading Sen Const Stephen Eppingstall, the officer in charge of investigating the fatal lunch, said to Patterson in the interview.
“Heather and Gail have passed away, all right. In relation to Ian, I don’t have a current prognosis in relation to where he’s at. As of late yesterday, the diagnosis isn’t great for him either, all right. We’re trying to understand what has made them so ill.
“Conversely, we’re trying to understand why you’re not that ill.”
Eppingstall could not be seen in the interview, but Patterson’s face was closest to the screen, and filled almost a third of the frame.
“I’m sure you understand too that, like, I’ve never been in a situation like this before … and I’ve been very, very helpful with the health department through the week because I wanted to help that side of things … as much as possible,” Patterson said.
“Because I do want to know what happened … so I’ve given them as much information as they’ve asked for and offered up all the food and all the information about where the food came from.”
Eppingstall went on to ask Patterson if she had ever foraged for mushrooms or owned a dehydrator.
“Obviously, we’ve got concerns in relation to these mushrooms and where they’ve come from,” he said.
“Mm,” Patterson responded.
“OK. Is that something you’ve done in the past, foraging for mushrooms?”
“Never.”
“Or anything like that? Never?”
“Never.”
Patterson was asked why she had an instruction manual for a Sunbeam Food Lab electronic dehydrator in the far left bottom drawer of her kitchen if she did not own one.
She again said she didn’t own one, saying: “I’ve got manuals for lots of stuff I’ve collected over the years. I’ve had all sorts of appliances and I just keep them all.”
The court has been shown footage of Patterson dumping the dehydrator at a local tip three days before her police interview. It was later found with her fingerprints on it and with traces of death cap mushrooms, the prosecution told the court.
The prosecution argues the evidence in the case proves Patterson did not consume death cap mushrooms at the lunch and pretended she was suffering the same type of illness as the lunch guests “to cover that up”, which also explained her “reluctance” to receive medical treatment.
It is also alleged Patterson lied about getting death cap mushrooms from an Asian grocer, and disposed of the dehydrator “to conceal what she had done”.
Colin Mandy SC, for Patterson, said in his opening remarks to the jury that his client had lied to police about the dehydrator and about foraging, but added that she had never foraged for death cap mushrooms.
Eppingstall also asked Patterson during the interview why she had invited her in-laws to lunch.
“You’ve described to me – relationship with your ex-partner Simon, all right. I’d like to understand why you had his parents and his uncle and auntie over for lunch on the 29th of July,” he said.
“Because I’ve got no other family so they’re the only support I’ve got … left and they’ve always been really good to me,” Patterson said.
“I want to maintain those relationships with them in spite of what’s happened with Simon. I love them a lot. They’ve always been really good to me, and they always said to me that they would support me with love and emotional support even though Simon and I were separated and I really appreciated that ’cause my parents are both gone. My grandparents are all gone. They’re the only family that I’ve got. And they’re the only grandparents that my children have and I want them to stay in my kids’ life.
“And that’s really important to me. And I think Simon hated that I still had a relationship with his parents but I – I love them. Nothing that’s ever happened between us – nothing he’s ever done to me will change the fact that they’re good, decent people that have never done anything wrong by me ever.”
Patterson was not the only fixture throughout the five weeks of the trial who was finally given voice this week. The other was Eppingstall, who has sat behind the prosecutors, suited and silent, as the witnesses making up the prosecution case were gradually called.
This week Eppingstall, the final prosecution witness, took the stand.
A tall man, who stood during his four days of giving evidence, he drew several laughs in court, including when Justice Christopher Beale told him he did not have to keep answering “yes ma’am” to prosecutor Jane Warren.
“You don’t have to keep saying ‘ma’am’,” Beale said.
“Yeah, it’s a habit, sir – your honour,” he replied.
Eppingstall was asked about a series of messages exchanged between Patterson, Don, Gail and Simon, including evidence tendered by Mandy.
These showed Patterson and her in-laws engaging in discussions about her children, their homework, wishing each other love, and, in the case of Don and Gail, saying they would be praying for Patterson, and using phrases such as wishing her and children “will know God’s peace”.
Mandy referred to “context” when he also showed Eppingstall messages exchanged with witnesses known as “the Facebook friends”.
The court previously heard evidence that Patterson criticised Simon and her in-laws in this chat, which had formed as a splinter group from a Facebook chat about the case of Keli Lane.
Eppingstall’s evidence is set to continue into a fifth day when the trial resumes on Monday.
