Four Acts of Deception: How Erin Patterson's Plan Unraveled

Crown Prosecutor Nanette Rogers delivers closing arguments in week eight of Erin Patterson's triple murder trial, outlining four alleged acts of deception in what the prosecution describes as a carefully planned poisoning. The defence maintains that the death cap mushroom poisonings were a tragic mistake, not intentional murder.

• Prosecution claims Ms Patterson fabricated an ovarian cancer story to distract from her alleged murder plot
• Individual beef wellingtons allegedly used to conceal death cap mushrooms, deviating from traditional shared-log recipe
• Different coloured plate allegedly used by Ms Patterson to identify her safe, non-poisoned meal
• Patterson's claim about buying dried mushrooms from an unremembered Asian grocery store called "not believable"
• Prosecution argues Ms Patterson feigned illness after the lunch, with symptoms inconsistent with actual mushroom poisoning
• Location data suggests Patterson may have travelled to areas where death cap mushrooms grow
• Ian Wilkinson, the sole survivor, testified that Ms Patterson used a different coloured plate from other guests
• Alleged cover-up attempts include disposing of a dehydrator and concealing a mobile phone from investigators

Please visit mushroommurdertrial.com to subscribe to this podcast and our newsletter for exclusive updates, including previews of our upcoming book about this case. You can also support our work by buying us a coffee from $5, which helps cover editing, studio hire, insurance, and other production costs.

Support the show

Instagram @Erin_Podcast
Twitter @lisapodcasts
Mushroom Murder Trial Website Facebook page

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Closing addresses.
Today got underway in ErinPatterson's triple murder trial,
which is now in its eighth canyou believe it?
Week in the Supreme Court ofVictoria in Morwell.
Hello and welcome to theMushroom Murder Trial podcast.
My name is Lisa.
Before we launch into today'supdates, please make sure you go

(00:22):
to my website,mushroommurdertrialcom to
subscribe.
If you haven't yet.
Please subscribe to thispodcast on your preferred
platform so you never miss anepisode.
Now getting back to Ms Patterson, the mother of two is pleading
not guilty to murdering threerelatives and the attempted
murder of a fourth by servingthem a beef wellington meal that

(00:46):
contained poisonous death catmushrooms.
Ms Patterson's defence claimsthis was a tragic mistake.
Now today, crown ProsecutorNanette Rogers, sc told the
court the Leon Gather woman hadengaged in four substantial acts
of deception while carrying outher alleged crimes.
The prosecutor said the firstof these was her allegedly

(01:10):
fabricated ovarian cancer claimmade to the lunch guests,
devised as an elaborate cover toconceal the alleged poisoning
plot.
Dr Rogers said the 50-year-oldfabricated a story about a
potential cancer diagnosis inorder to gain sympathy and to
distract from her allegedmotives.

(01:32):
Dr Rogers argued that MsPatterson went to considerable
lengths to make the deceptionconvincing, researching both
brain and ovarian cancers.
Why would she invent such astory, dr Rogers asked the
jurors, because she'd neverexpected her guests to survive

(01:53):
and reveal the lie.
She believes it would die withthem.
Ms Patterson's claim that thelunch was meant as a thank you
to her relatives and a showcasefor her garden.
As a thank you to her relativesand a showcase for her garden.
Dr Rogers asserted that MsPatterson had intentionally
excluded her own children fromthe gathering to ensure they

(02:13):
would not be harmed by thepoisoned food.
According to the prosecution,one of the most crucial aspects
of the alleged deception was theway the toxic death cap
mushrooms were concealed.
Dr Rogers said Ms Patterson hadallegedly deliberately placed
death cap mushrooms insideindividually prepared beef

(02:34):
wellingtons, deviating from thetraditional shared log-style
version that's typically foundin recipes.
Dr Rogers said the intentionbehind the meal was deeply
deceptive, Using what appearedto be a home-cooked lunch as a
method for delivering a fataldose of poison.

(02:55):
The prosecution argued that themeal itself became the vehicle
for harm by preparing the beefwellingtons as individual
portions rather than the singlelog the beef wellingtons as
individual portions rather thanthe single log, ms Patterson
could make it seem as if she waseating the same meal while
avoiding the poisoned servings.
Dr Rogers added that, while nodirect evidence pinpointed the

(03:19):
exact source of the mushrooms,ms Patterson was known to use
the iNaturalist website and hadmore than likely viewed entries
specifically related to deathcat mushrooms.
Location data suggested she mayhave also travelled to areas
such as Loch and Outram wherethe toxic fungi had previously

(03:43):
been identified.
A photo taken on one of herdevices allegedly showed
mushrooms on her kitchen benchwhich the prosecution argues
were death caps.
Dr Rogers also drew attention totestimony from Anne Wilkinson,
the only survivor of the lunch,who said that Ms Patterson used

(04:06):
a different coloured plate fromthe rest of the guests.
The prosecution claimed thiswas a deliberate act allowing
her to identify which meal wassafe for her to eat.
She separated her meal to avoidingesting the poison she had
added to the others, the courtwas told the prosecution
challenged Ms Patterson'sstatement that she bought dried

(04:28):
mushrooms for the meal from anAsian grocery store in several
suburbs in Melbourne, pointingout that she had an unusually
sharp memory throughout thetrial, including recalling the
specific days of past events,but could not remember which
grocery store she went into.

(04:48):
Dr Rogers questioned why MsPatterson could not remember the
location of this particularshop.
She said that the claim issimply not believable and called
it a falsehood that MsPatterson repeated time and time
again.
A third major deceptive,according to the Crown, involved
Ms Patterson pretending to besick.

(05:10):
After the lunch, dr Rogers toldthe jury that her symptoms did
not match those of the poisonedguests and argued that this
performance was staged to avoidsuspicion.
The only reason to feignillness was because she knew she
hadn't consumed the toxicmushrooms and that appearing too
healthy would raise the alarm.

(05:32):
Simon Patterson, the accusedestranged husband, testified
that she told him she becameunwell shortly after the guests
left, experiencing diarrhea.
However, dr Rogers highlightedthat the actual victims only
began showing symptoms aroundmidnight, which aligned with the

(05:52):
known timeline for death capmushroom poisoning that's a
medicine and pointed out howunlikely it was that someone
suffering severegastrointestinal symptoms would
choose to take a two-hour drivefrom Leangatha the following day

(06:16):
.
Dr Rogers further alleged thatMs Patterson's decision to leave
hospital before receivingtreatment suggested guilty
knowledge.
Ms Patterson hadn't eaten themushrooms.
The jury was told she rushedhome to figure out what to do
next and how she would explainher relatively mild condition.
As well as this, not one healthworker in two hospitals and in

(06:42):
an ambulance saw Erin Pattersonbeing actually unwell.
The prosecution concluded theday by introducing what it
described as a fourth layer ofdeception, attempts to cover up
what had occurred.
Dr Rogers accused Ms Pattersonof lying about feeding leftovers
to her children and about theorigin of the mushrooms used in

(07:04):
the meal.
She also claimed Ms Pattersondiscarded the dehydrator and
concealed her regular mobilephone from investigators.
The trial continues tomorrow andI will be back reporting for
you then as well.
So thank you so much forlistening.
For more information, go to mywebsite mushroommurdertrialcom.

(07:26):
Make sure you subscribe to mynewsletter and my social media
details they're in the shownotes as well and if you feel
like rewarding me for all thehours that I've put into this
work, I would greatly appreciateit if you could buy me a coffee
from $5 as a thank you, as someof you have.

(07:46):
Thank you, sometimes I do spendit on Caramello Koalas, but I
do spend it on editing, studiohire, liability insurance, sound
voiceovers and there'sexclusive membership material
for you.
But also, if you get on thenewsletter I am going to be
sharing with you guys first thebeginnings of my book about this

(08:10):
case.
So get on there, it's somethingfor free my newsletter.
Why would you ever?
My friend, mr Tony would saycheap is good.
Why would you turn your back onsomething that's free?
You just can't.
So look, we're now in the finaldays of the Patterson case, so
maybe this time next week wemight have a verdict.

(08:31):
We shall see.
Thank you so much.
Have a wonderful day.
Bye.