News
As the sole witness for the defence, facing three counts of murder, Erin Patterson has spent eight days denying that she intentionally added death cap mushrooms to a meal for her in-laws. By Lucie Morris-Marr.
Erin Patterson insists on her innocence in mushroom trial
In what is being dubbed a rare legal occurrence, the accused in Australia’s most gripping criminal trial has appeared personally to testify before the Supreme Court in her own defence. Erin Trudi Patterson continues to deny that she intentionally added death cap mushrooms to a beef Wellington lunch.
From the witness box of Latrobe Valley Magistrate’s Court in Gippsland, her long brown hair reaching her waist, Patterson has now spent more than a week offering explanations of the events surrounding the poisoning deaths of her estranged husband Simon Patterson’s parents, Don and Gail, both 70, and his aunt, Heather Wilkinson, 66.
The 50-year-old mother of two is also charged with attempted murder of the surviving July 2023 lunch guest – Heather’s husband, Baptist pastor Ian Wilkinson.
For the first time in this lengthy trial, which has already stretched from autumn to winter and attracted international media attention, the 14-strong jury heard Erin Patterson tell her side of the story.
As the sole defence witness, she declared she had been a keen mushroom forager and believes some of those she picked and dehydrated may have accidentally been used in the lunch. She denied knowingly collecting death cap mushrooms or using a nature website to purposely seek them out in local small towns.
Defence barrister Colin Mandy, SC, asked his client why she lied to medics and police about only sourcing the mushrooms from Woolworths and an “Asian grocer”.
“It was this stupid kneejerk reaction to dig deeper and keep lying,” Patterson tearfully told the court. “I was just scared, but I shouldn’t have done it.”
She offered key explanations of other issues to the jury; in particular, why she told her lunch guests she had cancer and needed advice on how to tell her two children. Previous hearings have revealed there was no evidence of such a diagnosis in Patterson’s medical records.
The defendant testified that she had struggled with her weight and secretly battled with bulimia since her 20s. She said she told the cancer story to ensure she had childcare help throughout her planned “gastric bypass surgery” in the following months. “I remember thinking I didn’t want to tell anybody what I was going to have done. I was really embarrassed by it.”
This tendency to binge and then purge manifested on the afternoon of the lunch, Patterson claimed, after she had eaten an orange cake dessert made by her mother-in-law.
Did Patterson fabricate this in an attempt to explain why she didn’t become as unwell as her guests? That question – and her denial – came later.
Once her defence barrister had concluded his questions, the senior Crown prosecutor launched into a searing cross-examination.
The questioning from Dr Nanette Rogers, SC, was initially so rapid, Justice Christopher Beale had to tell her to “slow down” – a sentiment echoed in a note from her colleague on the prosecution.
The subsequent proceedings were more moderately paced but no less dramatic.
“I suggest that you never thought you would have to account for this lie about having cancer because you thought the lunch guests would die,” Rogers said. “Your lie would never be found out.”
The prosecutor accused Patterson of “lying” and “lies” on multiple matters regarding her alleged actions before, during and after the lunch at her large home on a hectare in picturesque Leongatha.
“Are you making this up as you go along, Ms Patterson?” the senior counsel asked in Tuesday’s hearing.
“No I’m not,” Patterson replied firmly. It would be just one of many tense clashes with the prosecution, including during questioning over how she shopped for and prepared the lunch itself.
“I suggest you could have sourced a whole eye fillet portion from one of various supermarkets or butchers in Leongatha or Korumburra … But you chose, I suggest, individual portions of eye fillet because you wanted to serve individual portions of beef Wellington?
“Incorrect,” the witness replied.
Patterson previously explained that she had thought the mushroom paste – known as duxelle – she made to spread around the steaks was a bit bland. As a result, she had decided to add some of the dehydrated mushrooms from a Tupperware box in her pantry. It was only later, she claims, she realised some of her foraged mushrooms could have been mixed in with others from an Asian grocer.
Rogers suggested the defendant was not “seriously unwell” after the lunch because she did not consume “even a minute amount” of death cap mushrooms.
“I have no idea if I did or I didn’t,” Patterson replied.
“You were trying to make it seem like you were unwell … and you knew it would look suspicious if you didn’t look unwell.”
Regarding the witness’s claim she had made an appointment with the private Melbourne clinic Enrich for a gastric bypass, Rogers raised a newly sourced statement on Wednesday that the business did not offer such surgery, nor even a pre-assessment for the procedure.
Patterson agreed that such surgery had also not been discussed with any medical practitioners, including her GP.
However, she clashed again with Rogers while disputing evidence from multiple witnesses, including members of her estranged husband’s family and even her own children.
Both children said to police, in their recorded interviews in August 2023, their mother had told them she didn’t want them to attend the family lunch as it was just for five adults, and to go to McDonald’s and the movies instead. Patterson questioned their recollections, saying she believed she gave them the choice to have lunch at home with their grandparents and great-aunt and uncle.
“The truth is, I suggest, you wanted them out of the way,” Rogers told the accused, “because you did not want them anywhere near what you were going to serve to your guests. I assume you’ll disagree with that?”
“Correct,” Patterson replied.
She had earlier also disputed the testimony of Ian Wilkinson – a regular presence in the public gallery since completing his evidence – regarding the plates used for the lunch guests.
The widower told the court the plaintiff had served herself on a “red or rusty coloured” plate, while the guests ate from larger grey ones.
“Do you say Ian Wilkinson has given incorrect evidence around the issue of the plates?” Rogers asked.
“Yes, I do,” Patterson replied, saying she didn’t own four matching plates and they had been chosen at random by guests from the kitchen bench.
A large part of the cross-examination has focused on her relationship with Don and Gail Patterson, which she admits came under strain in late 2022.
Amid tensions with her estranged husband regarding payment of school fees, Erin Patterson had told a small group of online Facebook friends of her frustration that his parents seemed reluctant to intervene.
Rogers reminded the witness of a message she sent the friends in December 2022, telling them her father-in-law had said he could not help but instead offered prayers. “This family I swear to fucking god,” she had written, followed by two eye-rolling emojis.
“I suggest that you didn’t love them … I suggest you were angry they had taken Simon’s side,” Rogers said.
“That’s not true,” Patterson replied.
“And that feeling towards them continued,” the prosecutor added. “In fact you had two faces, a public face of appearing to have a good relationship with Don and Gail … and I suggest your private face was the one you showed in your Facebook message group.”
“Incorrect,” the defendant responded.
After eight arduous days in the witness stand Patterson’s evidence concluded on Thursday just before lunch.
Having maintained her composure during the long cross-examination, her voice finally cracked and she became emotional when questioned about the need to pack her daughter’s bag for a ballet rehearsal on the Monday after the lunch.
This change in tone came after a final tough morning in which she was accused of removing a SIM card during a police search and again denied “intentionally” killing her lunch guests.
Patterson finished giving evidence on Thursday morning. There will now be legal discussions, closing speeches and Justice Beale’s directions to the jury. The looming jury deliberations means increasing public interest in a case that the assembled media crews are touting as the “true crime trial of the century”.
“The only people you discuss this with are your fellow jurors in the jury room,” Justice Beale reiterated during Erin Patterson’s days on the witness stand. “Whether or not it gives people offence, well, bad luck.”
The trial continues.
This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on June 14, 2025 as "Erin Patterson doubles down".
For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australia’s leading writers and thinkers. We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth. We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care, on climate change, on the pandemic.
All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers. By subscribing to The Saturday Paper, you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential, issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to account politicians and the political class.
There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this. In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world, it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible.
Subscriber exclusive
Send this article to a friend for free.
Share this subscriber exclusive article with a friend or family member using share credits.
