‘Not only is there no motive, there are very good reasons not to harm these people,’ defence says
Mandy says if Patterson was a murderer she would have known the “spotlight” would be on her when her guests were hospitalised.
He says it was “inevitable the focus will be on the cook”.
Mandy says it was not a secret that Patterson had invited the lunch guests to her house.
“It’s all out in the open,” he says.
“She decided to cook a lavish and complicated dish … Not just a simple bolognese. But something much more impressive.”
He says if Patterson was planning to murder her lunch guests she would not have bought a dehydrator from a local store under her own name, take photos of the dehydrator and mushrooms in the appliance and post these images in a Facebook group chat.
“Erin Patterson did the opposite of all those things because she didn’t plan it,” he says.
He says Patterson panicked after the meal because she knew the spotlight would be on her.
“Not only is there no motive, there are very good reasons not to harm these people,” he says.
“And if you do embark on this plan … you’ll lose the only people in the world who are any support to you and your children, you will lose your children and you will lose everything that’s important to you.”
“It’s very unlikely that anyone in those circumstances would make that choice.”
Key events
The court has adjourned a little earlier than usual for the day.
Mandy’s closing address will resume from 10.30am tomorrow.
Mandy says Patterson spoke to many people after the lunch. He says it’s “likely” Patterson was “being consistent” when she gave accounts to people including child protection workers and medical staff.
He says witnesses had different “emphases” in questions they were asking her.
Mandy says at one point after the lunch his client had conversations with more than 21 people in 24 hours and it was difficult to remember what she told each person.
Patterson opened herself to ‘scrutiny of the whole world’, defence says
Mandy reminds the jury Patterson had a right to silence and did not have to testify in the trial.
“She doesn’t have to provide anything and yet she decided to give evidence and subject herself to several days of cross-examination by a very experienced barrister.”
He says in doing so Patterson opened herself up to juror’s scrutiny and the “scrutiny of the whole world.”
Mandy tells the jury the prosecution’s theory of Patterson making individual beef wellingtons fails if they cannot prove a non-poisoned pasty exists.
He says the prosecution’s case means Patterson would have eaten all of her beef wellington otherwise there would have been non-poisoned beef wellingtons in her bin.
Patterson previously told the court that she did not eat all of her beef wellington and the remnants were in the bin outside her home.
“If her portions were in the bin then her portions were poisoned,” Mandy says.
Mandy says Patterson only disposed of the dehydrator after the meal. He says if she planned to murder her lunch guests she would have disposed of the dehydrator well before the lunch.
He says it is unlikely Patterson would have posted photos of the dehydrator, which the prosecution alleges is the murder weapon, in a group chat with Facebook friends she met in an online true crime group.
He says Patterson driving to the tip to dispose of the dehydrator in her own car and paying for this with her own bank card highlight what “can only be panic”.
‘Not only is there no motive, there are very good reasons not to harm these people,’ defence says
Mandy says if Patterson was a murderer she would have known the “spotlight” would be on her when her guests were hospitalised.
He says it was “inevitable the focus will be on the cook”.
Mandy says it was not a secret that Patterson had invited the lunch guests to her house.
“It’s all out in the open,” he says.
“She decided to cook a lavish and complicated dish … Not just a simple bolognese. But something much more impressive.”
He says if Patterson was planning to murder her lunch guests she would not have bought a dehydrator from a local store under her own name, take photos of the dehydrator and mushrooms in the appliance and post these images in a Facebook group chat.
“Erin Patterson did the opposite of all those things because she didn’t plan it,” he says.
He says Patterson panicked after the meal because she knew the spotlight would be on her.
“Not only is there no motive, there are very good reasons not to harm these people,” he says.
“And if you do embark on this plan … you’ll lose the only people in the world who are any support to you and your children, you will lose your children and you will lose everything that’s important to you.”
“It’s very unlikely that anyone in those circumstances would make that choice.”
Justice Christopher Beale tells the jury he will begin instructing them ahead of their deliberations on Monday.
He says this may “spill over into Wednesday”.
“With a wind in my back I may finish by Tuesday afternoon,” he says.
Mandy says Simon told the jury Patterson sent an “aggressive” message about child support to a group chat with his parents on the app Signal in December 2022.
He says the next day the defence, during cross-examination, showed Simon these messages. Simon then said these were not the messages he was referring to, the court hears.
“Then his memory became it was at some other time. Still in this group chat.”
Mandy says the disagreement between Patterson and Simon did not provide “any kind of motive to murder someone’s parents and their aunt and uncle”, he says.
Mandy says the tone of the messages in the group chat from early December to when Patterson travelled to New Zealand with her children later that month are “on an even keel”.
“They might be functional, they might be mechanical, but these two people were not warring,” he says.
“There is not anger or aggression.”
He points to a message Patterson sent Simon on 18 December 2022 asking for help because a tree had fallen across a fence at her property and one of her goats was in a neighbour’s yard. Simon replied that he was interstate but was happy to help when he returned, the court hears.
Defence claims prosecution has been ‘scratching around’
Mandy says without a motive the jury is “left guessing about the most important element of this trial and that’s intention”, he says.
He says the prosecution has spent a lot of time “scratching around” to find evidence about animosity in Patterson’s family dynamics.
He points to evidence the prosecution led about Patterson and Simon having a dispute about child support and other financial arrangements in December 2022.
“They want to show there was some kind of difficulty … and that might provide a reason to murder his parents and his aunt and uncle six months later,” he says.
“Even saying it aloud … shows how unpersuasive that argument is.”
Mandy says the disputes over finances for their children occurred over a few days in December 2022.
“It was a brief spat, we say, about child support, which the evidence says was resolved amicably.”
“Obviously Erin was upset. She freely acknowledged that. She was venting to her Facebook friends … even months before the lunch.”
Mandy says another reason to consider that the lunch guests were good and kind people is because Patterson had no reason to harm them.
He says he will touch on the absence of a motive, as the prosecution predicted in their closing address.
Mandy reminds the jury that the prosecution does not have to prove motive. But he says one element of the offence of murder is intention to kill or cause serious injury.
“They have to prove that’s what Erin Patterson meant to do,” he says.
“Proof of a motive or the fact of a motive can be very important to intention.”
Jurors must put ‘natural human emotions’ aside and judge case on facts alone, Mandy says
Mandy says it is clear to everyone in the court room that Ian Wilkinson is a “kind and good person”. He says this also applies to the three lunch guests who died.
Human beings naturally feel deep empathy when confronted with events of loss, Mandy says.
He says humans may have an instinctive reaction to seek retribution for someone whose actions have caused the death of others.
“We know these actions of Erin Patterson caused the deaths of these three people and the serious illness of another” he says.
Mandy says jurors are judges and must guard against this type of thinking.
“You have to put your natural human emotions … to one side.”
He says the case is about a criminal offence with elements that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt.
“As a judge, what’s in your hearts, has no relevance at all,” he says.
Mandy says jurors must make a judgment on the facts alone.
Mandy says an important issue in this case is whether it is possible for people to share the same meal, containing death cap mushrooms, and have “very different health outcomes”.
“The answer to that question is a fundamental part of the case,” he says.
Mandy says the prosecution “seems to say ‘not possible’”.
Mandy says the prosecution should have called evidence if there was a medical reason Patterson did not become as unwell as her lunch guests.
The jurors have returned to the court room in Morwell
The court has adjourned for a lunch break
Mandy’s closing address will continue from 2.15pm.
