Wednesday Ms Patterson claimed she only ate a small portion of her lunch and later threw up after binge-eating two-thirds of a cake.
“Correct, that’s correct,” Ms Patterson says.
“Correct, correct,” she replies again.
Ms Patterson said she didn’t tell doctors because the lunch guests were already getting treatment for death cap mushroom poisoning.
Ms Patterson picks up her glasses, puts them on, and looks at the screen in front of her.
Tuesday is the next court day.
You can keep up with the most recent events in our story here, but we are currently halting our live coverage of the Erin Patterson trial.
Due to Monday’s public holiday, the courts will be closed. However, trial proceedings will resume on Tuesday, June 10, when the courts reopen at 10:30 local time.
As the trial moves into the seventh week, we anticipate that Erin Patterson will continue to be cross-examined.
evidence presented by Ms. Patterson this week.
After recapping the evidence from today, let’s take a look at what Ms. Patterson told us earlier this week.
Monday. .
In the time leading up to the deadly lunch, Ms. Patterson talked about her marital issues with her estranged husband and how she felt isolated from the larger Patterson family.
She also talked about her first child’s traumatic birth, stating that she defied medical advice and left the hospital early following an emergency caesarean.
Tuesday.
We learned about Ms. Patterson’s passion for mushrooms and how, as a hobby, she began searching for wild varieties in early 2020.
The defendant claimed that a combination of store-bought and Melbourne-grocer-sourced mushrooms were used in the beef Wellington dish.
The third Wednesday.
Ms. Patterson said she binge-ate two-thirds of a cake and then puked after eating only a small portion of her lunch.
She also acknowledged that she might have accidentally included foraged mushrooms from her pantry into the meal and that she had lied to her guests about having cancer to hide her shame over her intentions to have weight-loss surgery.
Wednesday.
The mother of two claimed that she was afraid of being held responsible for the deadly meal, so she told police she had a dehydrator and foraged for mushrooms.
She denied a photo of what appeared to be death cap mushrooms being weighed on a kitchen scale in her house, claiming that she was figuring out how much would kill her guests.
The jury was sent home for the day.
The court adjourns for the day at that point.
Since this case is being heard in a small regional town, the judge and many of the important court officials must travel back and forth from Melbourne every week.
The case, which is lengthy, is only heard for half a day on Friday to give them time to go home for the weekend.
Additionally, there won’t be a court hearing on Monday because it’s a public holiday in Victoria.
We’ll give you a summary of the day soon.
I can’t remember any web searches for toxic mushrooms, Ms. Patterson.
The iNaturalist website, which has been mentioned during the trial and provided a list of places where Ms. Patterson’s house might be able to find death cap mushrooms, also came into focus today.
The prosecutor questions Ms. Patterson about how she used a specific search engine to access the website and implies that the accused was aware of what she was looking for.
Ms. Patterson declares, “I don’t remember this.”.
Ms. Patterson repeatedly claims she cannot recall specific interactions with the website as the court is shown multiple screenshots of the website.
The prosecutor uses a specific screenshot to inquire about Ms. Patterson’s interest in death cap mushrooms on May 28, 2022, just before the court session ends for the day.
She responds, “What you mean by an interest depends on it.”.
Small courthouse, huge interest.
Watson, Katy.
From Morwell, reporting.
Here’s some additional information about the town’s courthouse’s response to the intense interest in this case.
There is not much room in courtroom 5 of the Latrobe Valley Law Courts, a modest, contemporary structure on the main road.
As a result, seating needs to be carefully controlled.
All other journalists must observe from an overflow room here or in Melbourne, as only six are permitted entry into the court each day. There isn’t much more room set aside for the general public.
Wilkinsons extended a “thank you” invitation to lunch for their generosity.
Watson Katy.
news from Morwell.
Ms. Patterson explains that she invited her in-laws, Heather, and Ian Wilkinson because she wanted to express her gratitude to them for their support over the years.
When [my daughter] was young and I began taking her to playgroup, Heather was a huge help. During those playgroup sessions, Heather would sit with me and show me a lot of kindness. “,”.
“I wanted to say thank you to her,” Ms. Patterson says as she sobs and grabs a tissue from the witness box’s side.
When questioned further, Ms. Patterson affirms that the conversations she talks about with Mrs. Wilkinson took place years prior to the lunch.
A “stronger relationship” with the elderly couple was something else she expressed a desire for.
“You had two faces,” the prosecutor claims.
Turnbull, Tiffany.
Live editor.
Dr. Rogers goes on.
“You were a multifaceted person.”. Do you agree or disagree with the public’s perception of a positive relationship between Don and Gail?
“I enjoyed my time with Don and Gail,” is the answer.
In reference to messages in which Ms. Patterson criticizes her estranged husband Simon’s family, the prosecutor states, “I suggest your private face was the one you showed in your Facebook use… and how you truly felt about Don and Gail was how you expressed it [there].”.
“Incorrect,” Ms. Patterson responds, her voice trailing off and her head trembling.
“And you truly felt that way about Simon Patterson. You didn’t think he was a good person at heart, right or wrong?”.
In response, Ms. Patterson says she still thinks he’s a decent guy.
“Not a single person,” Ms. Patterson concurs.
Lana Lame.
Live reporter.
When Ms. Patterson realized it was possible that her foraged mushrooms might have inadvertently entered the meal, the prosecution is still questioning her about what she did right away.
The exchange is as follows.
“You never once mentioned to a doctor that foraged mushrooms were or could be a factor in this?”.
When Ms. Patterson says, “Correct, that’s correct,”.
“You didn’t tell anyone?”.
She responds, “Correct, correct,” once more.
According to Dr. Rogers, “you did not disclose to anyone that there might have been foraged mushrooms used in the meal, even after you were released from the hospital.”.
“You got up instead, and you took your kids to school. and took a car home. After that, the dehydrator was discarded. That’s right?”.
True. “.”.
“You would have informed doctors about wild mushrooms if you had loved them.”.
Katy Watson.
reporting from Morwell.
A confrontation with her estranged husband earlier this week, during which she claims he asked her if she had poisoned his parents with a food dehydrator, caused Erin Patterson to consider what could have been in that deadly meal.
Simon Patterson disputes the exchange, but according to Ms. Patterson, she started to suspect that the beef Wellingtons might have unintentionally contained dried foraged mushrooms that she had collected.
She acknowledged that she was afraid she might be responsible for making her family members sick.
According to prosecutor Nanette Rogers, “you told police that you loved Don and Gail.”.
“Surely, you would have alerted the medical authorities right away if you had loved them about the possibility that the foraged mushrooms might have ended up in the container with the Chinese mushrooms.”.
According to Ms. Patterson, the lunch attendees were already receiving treatment for death cap mushroom poisoning, so she chose not to inform the physicians.
Prosecutors claim that the husband’s spare poison meal was prepared.
Among the messages read to the court this morning was Ms. Patterson’s reply to her estranged husband’s text message stating that he would not be attending the lunch. In response, the accused expresses disappointment and hopes he will reconsider.
The prosecutor advises, “I suggest you prepared a poisoned beef Wellington for him just in case he turned up.”.
“And you eventually threw it in the trash can after he failed to show up for lunch. “.
Erin Patterson confirms that she did dispose of the mushrooms and pastry in the trash, but she again refutes the notion that she intended to poison someone.
Ms. Patterson claims that she needed to talk about a serious medical matter during lunch.
Questions are being asked about Ms. Patterson’s assertions that she needed to discuss her health concerns with Simon and her family.
Although she has acknowledged in the past that she misled them into thinking she might require cancer treatment, she denies telling them she was diagnosed. She told the jurors that she did this to hide the fact that she was going to have weight-loss surgery but was too ashamed to tell them.
Dr. Rogers says that’s not true, and Ms. Patterson didn’t have any health concerns that she needed to share with her family.
Ms. Patterson emphasizes that she did, and she mentioned that she had a consultation scheduled for early September at a Melbourne clinic to talk about the gastric bypass procedure.
There was a “pre-surgery appointment” instead of the actual surgery, she claims.
Court is read messages aloud.
Atkinson, Simon.
reporting from Morwell.
The prosecutor has requested that Ms. Patterson read aloud in court some of the texts, posts, and messages she wrote on Facebook, Signal, and other platforms today.
After getting her glasses and putting them on, Ms. Patterson examines the screen in front of her.
Her message to Simon Patterson, which she sent after he refused to attend the trial’s lunch, has just been asked to be read aloud in court.
In dissecting the message’s content, the prosecutor is concentrating on whether the wording was intended to indicate that Ms. Patterson had health concerns to address.
Ms. Patterson responds that she did have medical concerns to address and that she intended to undergo weight-loss surgery.
