Erin Patterson is a God-fearing mother who had every reason to want her lunch guests alive, a jury has heard.
On Thursday, Patterson’s barrister Colin Mandy, SC finally completed his defence to the jury, which has been sitting on the trial for eight long weeks.
Patterson, 50, has pleaded not guilty to the murders of Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson.
They died after consuming death cap mushrooms served in beef Wellingtons during lunch at her Leongatha home on July 29, 2023.
Only Pastor Ian Wilkinson survived the lunch, with a charge of attempted murder also hanging over Patterson’s head.
Mr Mandy urged the jury not to believe any suggestions that his client had not been a legitimate Christian.
‘Erin Patterson was not an atheist,’ he said.
The suggestion had been made at the beginning of the trial when a witness who had been in a Facebook group with Patterson claimed she had told them she was one.
Patterson’s legal team Sophie Stafford and Colin Mandy, SC on Thursday
The jury heard Patterson had been an atheist when she met Simon, but converted to Christianity as a result of his influence.
Mr Mandy said members from a smaller chat group that Patterson was in weren’t asked questions about her religious beliefs by the prosecution.
‘As to what Erin’s religious beliefs might be, and that’s an example we say of picking and choosing the evidence that suits them and ignoring the others.
‘Picking a misleading, we say, piece of evidence about her being two-faced and constructing a theory around that and ignoring the overwhelming weight of the other evidence that points in the opposite direction.’
Mr Mandy had been critical of Crown prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers’ closing address to the jury earlier this week, suggesting she had mislead the jurors by cherry-picking evidence to suit her narrative.
He told the jury the prosecution had a ‘high bar’ to leap to establish Patterson was guilty of murder, comparing the task to the sport of high jump.
‘A trial like this sometimes seems like a competition – naturally, one side against another, like we’re competing against each other like a boxing match or a football match or netball – or whatever it is,’ Mr Mandy said.
‘The truth is, it is more like the high jump. This is important. Only the prosecution has to get over the bar.
‘Defence doesn’t have to do anything. Defence doesn’t have to jump any bar. Erin Patterson doesn’t have to jump any bar at all.’
Crown prosecutors Jane Warren and Dr Nanette Rogers on Thursday
Sophie Stafford has played a major role in defending Erin Patterson
Mr Mandy said if the jury thought his client ‘maybe’ deliberately poisoned the meal, it must find her not guilty.
‘If you think that she probably deliberately poisoned the meal, you must find her not guilty,’ he continued.
‘If you think it’s possible that she intended to kill or cause really serious injury to Don, or Gail or Heather, you must find her not guilty.
‘If you think maybe she intended those things, then you must find her not guilty.’
‘If you think probably she intended those things, you must find her not guilty.’
‘And if you think it’s possible Erin intended to kill Ian, you have to find her not guilty. Maybe she intended to kill Ian: not guilty.’
Mr Mandy claimed to the the jury it had been sold ‘convoluted’ and ‘ridiculous’ propositions by Dr Rogers during her closing address.
These included that Patterson would murder without any motive to do so and lie about cancer to get her guests to attend the lunch.
He further dismissed the prosecution view that Patterson believed her lunch guests would ‘take her secrets (about her medical issues) to the grave with them’.
Ian Wilkinson (right) attends court on Thursday. He has attended almost every day of the trial
Mr Mandy suggested there was no way his client would have committed the crime knowing she would be under the spotlight of investigators.
The jury heard Patterson ought be commended for choosing to enter the witness box and facing off with Dr Rogers in person.
‘When she chose to do it, she made that decision as an innocent person,’ Mr Mandy said.
Mr Mandy said Patterson had answered questions carefully, ‘even pedantic’, he said.
‘You would not have had the impression that she was trying to charm you or persuade you,’ Mr Mandy said.
‘She was going about the job she had.’
He explained his client had told lies after the lunch, dumped her dehydrator and wiped her mobile phone in acts of sheer panic.
The wiping of her phone, Mr Mandy told the jury, had been a ‘stupid thing’.
Colin Mandy, SC completed his closing address on Thursday
Listen to The Trial Of Erin Patterson on your favourite streaming platform
Erin Patterson in the days after the lunch
‘There’s all sorts of reasons why an innocent person can engage in that type of behaviour,’ he said.
‘Erin got into the witness box and told you she did those things because she panicked when confronted with the terrible possibility, the terrible realisation, that her actions had caused the illness of the people she loved.’
Mr Mandy said she told the truth even when it was ‘deeply embarrassing’ and admitted she told lies.
He declared that his client came out of extensive cross-examination ‘unscathed’.
‘Her account remained coherent and consistent day after day,’ he said.
Mr Mandy insisted his client is and had always been innocent of the charges.
‘Our submission is the prosecution case cannot get over that high bar of beyond reasonable doubt,’ he said.
