Judge instructs jury on prosecution argument that accused mushroom cook lied about being unwell

Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale is instructing the jury about incriminating conduct, relating to the prosecution’s allegation that accused killer Erin Patterson lied about being unwell and faked having death cap mushroom poisoning.

Beale summarised the evidence of Patterson’s son, in which the boy recalled his mother telling him she was unwell on the Sunday morning after the beef Wellington lunch on Saturday, July 29, 2023, and that they might be unable to go to church because of her diarrhoea.

The accused, Beale said, told the jury her diarrhoea was regular and she had to “poo on the side of the road” while driving back to her Leongatha home from her son’s flying lesson in Tyabb, after it was cancelled on the Sunday.

In her evidence, Patterson said she put soiled tissues in a dog bag and later dropped them in the bathroom at the BP service station in Caldermeade on her way home from Tyabb.

When Patterson arrived at Leongatha Hospital for the second time on Monday, July 31 and was admitted, nurse Mairim Cespon, in her evidence, told the jury about four apparent “poos” the accused did there between 10am and 10.15am.

Cespon told the jury that Patterson commented that the first one looked like urine but was a bowel motion, and the others were described as medium or liquid, as the accused appeared distressed and emotional with a cramping pain that she scored seven out of 10.

Beale told the jury the prosecution argued Patterson was never sick and faked her illness “otherwise it’d give her away”, and that her accounts of illness varied when speaking to others.

The lunch guests were also in advanced organ failure by August 4, 2023, prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC, told the jury in her closing address last week.

Patterson’s defence team argued that she was unwell, that her medical test results supported her account, and that her account of her symptoms was consistent throughout.

Beale, in his charge to the jury, said incriminating conduct included alleged lies and deliberate untruths.

He said there were two ways the jury could use these, and that the law says they can use lies to help assess an accused person’s credibility.

“That is not to say just because you find that the accused lied about one matter, you must also find that she’s been lying about everything else,” the judge told the jury.

“But you can use the fact that she did, if you find that you did, to help you determine the truthfulness of the other things that she has said.

“It’s one factor to take into account. It’s for you to decide what significance to give those suggested lies.”

Beale said another way this topic could be used by the jurors was as admissions of guilt.

“You may only use evidence that Erin Patterson lied in this way if you find that she did tell a deliberate untruth, and the only reasonable explanation for doing so is that she believed that she had committed the charged offences,” Beale said.

“However, I must warn you that even if you find that the accused believed that she committed the offences charged, you must consider all the evidence when deciding whether the prosecution has proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”