The jury in the Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial has officially retired to consider its verdict.
After nearly 10 weeks of evidence, testimony and high public interest, the trial is now in its final phase of jury deliberations.
Patterson, 50, is accused of murdering her former in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, as well as Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson and attempting to murder Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson, by serving them a beef Wellington allegedly laced with death cap mushrooms during a lunch on July 29, 2023.
All four guests became ill after the meal at her Leongatha home. Three of them later died in hospital from liver failure. Ian Wilkinson survived but spent nearly two months recovering in intensive care and receiving a transplant.
Throughout the trial, Patterson has maintained her innocence, pleading not guilty to all four charges. She took the stand in her own defence earlier this month admitting she had foraged for wild mushrooms during Covid, and even tasted some herself, but insisting she never intended to harm anyone.
The case has captured headlines around the world due to its unusual details and the nature of the alleged poisonings.
Judge's final summary of both cases
In closing his directions, Justice Beale reminded the jury that they’ve heard a massive amount of evidence, including 125 exhibits.
He told them not to make assumptions based on whether something appears in the official trial chronology or not and instead urged them to focus on the core themes of each side’s case.
He recapped the prosecution’s case, which alleges:
- Erin Patterson individually prepared and plated each beef Wellington to control the ingredients;
- She faked having cancer to convince guests to attend;
- She pretended to be a mushroom forager, and even faked her own mushroom poisoning; and
- She lied repeatedly, including about her health, having diarrhoea, and whether she owned a food dehydrator.
As for the defence, Beale said they argued:
- There is a reasonable possibility the death cap mushrooms were included accidentally;
- The Crown had cherry-picked evidence to suit its case;
- The absence of a clear motive supports the idea it was a tragic mistake; and
- Jurors should be cautious of relying on hindsight — just because someone died, doesn’t mean someone intended for them to.
He told the jury their job now is to weigh all of that carefully and reach a verdict based on the evidence — not speculation or emotion.
Beale also explained that jurors are allowed to ask questions during deliberations if anything needs clarification. However, he warned them not to disclose how the jury is currently leaning. For example, he said the court should never be told if the group is split 7–5 or otherwise.
“You should only discuss the case with each other,” he told them, “and only when you are all together in the privacy of the jury room.”
Final instructions from the judge
Justice Christopher Beale wrapped up his final instructions to the jury.
He reminded them that the mere fact Patterson admitted to telling lies, including about her health fake cancer diagnosis, should not be automatically taken as proof of guilt. Instead, jurors must carefully assess why those lies were told and whether they reflect panic, confusion, or a guilty mind.
“Do not reason that just because a person is shown to have told a lie, that she must be guilty of the offence,” he said.
Beale also outlined how jurors should weigh circumstantial evidence, including as Patterson’s internet search history, conflicting statements, and the disposal of a food dehydrator police believe was used to dry the mushrooms. The prosecution argued these were “incriminating acts” that pointed to guilt; the defence said they could all be explained without assuming criminal intent.
The judge emphasised that the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Patterson deliberately served a deadly meal knowing what it contained and that she intended to kill or seriously harm the victims.
What happens next?
Twelve jurors have now begun deliberations and will be kept together, isolated from media and public opinion, until they reach a unanimous verdict.
It’s unclear how long that could take. If the jury can’t reach a decision, Justice Beale could discharge them altogether, ending in a mistrial.
SHARE ME