The trial of Erin Patterson, accused of murdering three relatives and attempting to murder a fourth by serving them a meal allegedly laced with death cap mushrooms, continues in the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Detective Senior Constable Stephen Eppingstall has been on the stand for four days. His testimony has revealed new details about Erin Patterson’s messages, devices and the digital evidence that investigators say helped build their case.
Australia Correspondent Aziz Al Sa'afin wraps up week five of the trial.
The case
On July 29, 2023, Erin Patterson hosted a lunch at her home in Leongatha, Victoria, serving beef Wellington to her former in-laws: Don and Gail Patterson, Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson, and Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson.
Subsequently, all four guests fell ill with symptoms consistent with death cap mushroom poisoning.
Don, Gail, and Heather died in the following days, while Ian survived after intensive medical treatment, including a liver transplant.
Patterson has pleaded not guilty to three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, asserting that the incident was a tragic accident.
Who is Detective Eppingstall?
Detective Senior Constable Stephen Eppingstall has led the investigation. This week, jurors have heard his detailed evidence over four consecutive days and both sides have put his case under a microscope.
Prosecution's case
Digital evidence and purchase history
Detective Eppingstall presented evidence indicating that Patterson's computer had been used to access iNaturalist, a website documenting death cap mushroom sightings, in May 2022.
Additionally, Woolworths Everyday Rewards data showed purchases of mushrooms, pastry, eye fillet, onions and mashed potato in the week leading up to the lunch
Mobile devices and SIM card activity
Eppingstall testified that Patterson used multiple phones and allegedly swapped SIM cards during a police search of her home.
One device, referred to as "Phone A", remains missing. Another phone was subjected to multiple factory resets, the court was told.
Dehydrator and disposal
The prosecution highlighted that Patterson initially denied owning a food dehydrator. However, a manual was found in her home and CCTV footage showed a woman getting out of a red SUV and disposing of a dehydrator at a local transfer station shortly after the lunch.
Forensic analysis detected traces of death cap mushroom toxins on the dehydrator.
Text messages and health claims
Text messages presented in court revealed that Patterson had informed her former in-laws about undergoing cancer tests, a claim unsubstantiated by medical records.
The prosecution suggests this was a fabricated excuse to for the lunch as well as to prevent her children from attending.
Defence's argument
Contextualizing digital evidence
Defence counsel Colin Mandy SC argued the digital evidence, including internet searches and purchase histories, does not conclusively prove intent to harm.
He emphasised that others could have accessed the computer and that receipts do not confirm which mushrooms were used in the meal.
Emotional state and health concerns
The defence acknowledged that Patterson lied about her health status but contended that these falsehoods stemmed from panic and longstanding health anxieties.
Patterson had a history of researching potential ovarian cancer, which the defence argues contributed to her mental state.
Relationship dynamics
Messages from a Facebook group chat were introduced, showing Patterson expressing frustration toward her in-laws and estranged husband.
The defence maintained that these messages were taken out of context and represented emotional venting rather than evidence of malicious intent.
Police investigation scrutiny
Under cross-examination, Detective Eppingstall faced questions regarding the thoroughness of the investigation.
The defence pointed out during the initial search of Patterson's home, several electronic devices and bank records were not seized.
Eppingstall admitted to certain oversights but defended the overall integrity of the investigation.
Patterson's Police interview shown to court
One of the most scrutinised parts of the case is Patterson’s interview with police, recorded three days after the fatal lunch.
The jury was played audio of the three-hour interview earlier in the trial. In it, Patterson appeared emotional but denied deliberately poisoning her guests.
She repeatedly told officers she didn’t know how the mushrooms could have become contaminated, saying: “I didn’t do anything... I loved them.”
She said the beef Wellington was made with a mix of button mushrooms from the supermarket and dried mushrooms she believed were bought from an Asian grocer “a long time ago”.
Patterson insisted she had no reason to harm her former in-laws and described the incident as “an accident”.
However, Police noted that some of Patterson’s statements conflicted with other evidence presented at trial, including:
- She said she didn’t own a dehydrator yet CCTV showed a woman disposing of one at a rubbish tip on the day Patterson discharged herself from hospital.
- She initially told police she hadn’t searched for mushrooms online, despite forensic evidence showing mushroom-related searches on a computer seized from her home.
- She said she cooked and ate the same meal as her guests, but hospital staff said she did not display symptoms consistent with mushroom poisoning.
The defence has acknowledged that Patterson lied in parts of her interview but argued these were “panicked omissions” from someone in shock and grief.
They urged the jury not to treat her inconsistencies as proof of guilt, but rather as the behaviour of a distressed woman who was overwhelmed by the unfolding tragedy.
SHARE ME