July 7, 2025 • 18 mins
A long-awaited verdict has been handed down in the mushroom murder trial of Erin Patterson. A jury found Patterson guilty of three counts of murder, and one count of attempted murder. Patterson was charged after she served her estranged husband’s relatives a beef Wellington lunch that included death cap mushrooms in July 2023. Prosecutors alleged she put them in the meal intentionally, while the defence argued it was a mistake. Today, we’ll take you through the latest on the trial from the verdict to sentencing, what led to this moment and what comes next.
Catch up on our episode about Erin Patterson's testimony here.
Hosts: Lucy Tassell and Emma Gillespie
Producer: Orla Maher
Want to support The Daily Aus? That's so kind! The best way to do that is to click ‘follow’ on Spotify or Apple and to leave us a five-star review. We would be so grateful.
The Daily Aus is a media company focused on delivering accessible and digestible news to young people. We are completely independent.
Want more from TDA?
Subscribe to The Daily Aus newsletter
Subscribe to The Daily Aus’ YouTube Channel
Have feedback for us?
We’re always looking for new ways to improve what we do. If you’ve got feedback, we’re all ears. Tell us here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Already and this is the daily This is the Daily
ohs oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Tuesday,
the eighth of July. I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
I'm Lucy Tassel.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Late yesterday afternoon, a long awaited verdict was handed down
in the mushroom murder trial of Aaron Patterson. A jury
found Patterson guilty on all three charges of murder, which
carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment in Victoria, and
she was also found guilty of attempted murder.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Pattison was charged after she served her estranged husband's relatives
a beef Wellington lunch that included deathcap mushrooms. Prosecutors alleged
she put them in the meal intentionally, while the defense
argued it was a mistake. Today we'll update you on
the latest in the trial, from verdict to sentencing, what
led to this moment and what comes next.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Lucy, You, like many of us, have been following this
case very closely over the last few months, even the
last couple of years. It's been a prominent story in
the Australian media landscape for some time. Now we finally
have a verdict. Can you walk us through what happened
in the case yesterday?
Speaker 1 (01:26):
So yesterday afternoon we all got the news alert that
the jury was finished their deliberations, which had taken about
a week. They went into being sequestered. We'll explain that
more later, but they went into deliberate last Monday, and
so they had come to a verdict. Justice Christopher Biale
presided over the reading of the verdict, which was delivered
(01:48):
to a packed court room in the Latrobe Valley Magistrates Court,
which is where all of this has taken place. In court,
there's differing accounts of Patterson's reaction. From the ABC, we
heard that she showed little emotion. From nine we heard
that she blinked a lot. That was kind of the
main reaction that she showed. But certainly there wasn't a
(02:11):
large emotional reaction.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
When she heard those verdicts. Yes on those four charges.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Yes, when she was read the verdict and she was
found guilty of three counts of murder. Those relate to
the deaths of Don Patterson and Gail Patterson. That's her
estranged husband, Simon's parents, and Heather Wilkinson, who is her
a strange husband. Simon's aunt. And then of course there's
the account of attempted murder that relates to Ian Wilkinson.
(02:41):
That's Heather's husband, so Simon's uncle, and he survived the lunch.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Okay. So, as we've kind of touched on, this is
a case that has captivated not just Australians but the
world ye for quite some time now. We've discussed the
details of it on the podcast, we've discussed the big
updates from what ended up being a ten week hearing.
But can you just give us a quick reminder of
how we got here? Tell us about that fateful lunch.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Yeah, So for those who are unfamiliar, who might have
forgotten the details in all of the information that's been
presented during the trial. So Aaron Patterson invited five people
over to lunch at her home in eastern Victoria and
the town of Leanngatha in July twenty twenty three. So
the people that she invited were her husband, Simon, so
they were estranged but still very much legally married, his
(03:34):
parents Don and Gale, and his aunt and uncle Heather
and Ian Wilkinson. The night before, Simon told erin via
text that he wouldn't be attending. We saw those texts
tended in court as evidence. Then the lunch went ahead anyway,
So Don Gale, Heather, Ian and Erin they all sit
down for a meal of beef wellington. So, for those
(03:58):
who don't know, a beef wellington.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Is a log of beef.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
It's coated in a mushroom paste called duk cell and
then it's wrapped in pastry. Aaron made individual beef wellington's
that differed from the recipe that she was using, which
came from the recipe Tin Eats cookbook Dinner Yep, which
is on the shelf probably in your home right now
(04:21):
given iconic, yeah best selling cookbook. Now, that recipe calls
for a single log. She chose to make individual slices.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Which we heard in court was because she couldn't find
a piece of steak or beef that was big enough
yea to make the log, so she made individual portions. That,
of course then was contested over the weeks of this hearing.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
Yes about whether or not she could have found her
evidence was that she couldn't find it. She bought individual steaks.
So following the lunch, Don Gaale, Heather and Ian all
become extremely unwell Aaron gave evidence that she also became unwell.
Her four guests or went to hospital. Erin then later
(05:04):
went to hospital. Don and Gail and Heather died in
hospital in the following days. Ian Wilkinson survived. He required
a liver transplant, but he did live and he attended court.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
And he was in hospital for a lengthy period.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Yes, you might have remembered the headlines around when he
came out of hospital. That that was kind of the
biggest development in that case in those later months of
twenty twenty three until Erin herself was charged in November
twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
And you mentioned there that Erin did go to hospital.
What do we know about her condition? How was she
physically after the lunch?
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Yeah, she was not as sick as her guests. That
is certainly not contested. She has given evidence that she
was sick. So she said that she had been having
diarrhea for days, took herself into the hospital to get
some fluids, and that's when doctors told her, Oh, you
are the person from this lunch that we've heard about.
(06:03):
Everyone else who was there is really really critically ill
and we're very worried about you. Did anyone else eat this.
She at that point said that her children had been
given some of the meal, but that she'd scraped the
mushrooms off because they don't like them, and they told
her her kids needed to come into hospital. She pretty
soon after checked herself out of hospital. She said that
(06:24):
was to deal with some things at home, like letting
out the dog, feeding the sheep that were in her paddock,
and then she later returned to hospital. But yeah, there's
contested evidence about how sick she actually was. It's certainly
clear that she didn't need a liver transplant, She didn't
need as much care as the others. One of the
(06:47):
reasons she gave for why that might be the case
is that she had a history of disordered eating, and
she said that she had binged and then thrown up
some of the food from the lunch. She suggested that
might be or rather the defense suggested that might be
why she wasn't as sick because it wasn't in her
(07:09):
system for as long.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
Okay, so that paints a little bit of a picture
of the defense, which we'll go into more shortly. But
what was the prosecution's case against Patterson, Because obviously this
is ultimately the successful argument.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Yeah, Yeah, it's kind of strange to be thinking about
that now. I feel like for the entire length of
the trial. It's obviously as responsible journalists you have to
be incredibly careful about what you say about a case
while it's still in the court, at risk of prejudicing
the jury. But yeah, it feels strange now to be
able to say one side has definitively exactly. I mean,
(07:47):
there could still be an appeal, but that's.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
We We will get to that.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
We'll get to that. Sorry, jumping ahead of myself. The
prosecution argument, which, as you said, has now been found
by the jury to be the more convincing. One. Prosecutors
argued Patterson to really put death cat mushrooms in the
beef Wellington to kill her guests. They painted a picture
of a woman who had two faces, a polite face
to her in laws in person and her real face
(08:12):
speaking to her Facebook friends online, expressing frustration about her
in law's role in her relationship with her estranged husband,
which had been cooling in recent years despite many years
of amicable separation. Okay, doctor Nannette Rodgers, she's the prosecutor,
She told the jury. Patterson had research deathcat mushrooms online
(08:33):
and purchased a dehydrator a food dehydrator to prepare them.
The prosecution presented evidence that Pattison lied repeatedly to police
about whether or not she foraged and whether or not
she had a dehydrator, and they also highlighted that Patterson
had thrown away the dehydrator at the tip just two
days before her police interview, which you probably have seen
(08:56):
the CCTV footage of.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Yeah, a lot was said about where the mushrooms came from,
whether or not she'd foraged them herself, whether or not
she'd purchased them from an Asian grosser, whether they were
in her pantry for a long period of time, and
she accidentally had death.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
Caps, which was the defense argument.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Yeah, exactly. So tell me a little bit more about
the defense argument.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Yeah, So, Pattison admitted on the stand that she had
foraged for mushrooms and then stored them in a tupperware container.
The defense's argument and her argument, was that if death
caps were mixed in, which she admitted was possible, it
was just a tragic accident, that she had never intentionally
foraged for poisonous mushrooms, and that they're ending up in
(09:40):
the meal, which she said was to add flavor to
the mushroom paste. The foraged mushrooms was just a mistake.
And I mentioned there that she took the stand, as
we would know, that's a very rare thing in court cases.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Yeah, I remember this case really taking a sharp turn
when we she earned that Aaron Patterson would be taking
the stand as witness to give testimony in her own trial.
She provided evidence over a period of several days.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Yeah, what was it?
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Key learnings and revelations from that time.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
The biggest one for me that I was safe to
say the most surprised to see someone admit on the
stand was Aaron admitted to telling several lies during her
original police interview. So we've touched on the foraging and
the dehydrator, so she lied. She told them she had
never foraged for mushrooms and that she didn't own a dehydrator.
(10:35):
I suppose that one sort of a half truth because
she at that moment did not own a dehydrator because
it was in the local tip, but she had owned
one until days earlier. On the stand, she also admitted
to misleading her guests about having cancer. She told the
court she wanted their support, but had never actually been
diagnosed with cancer. But she said that she kind of
(10:59):
led them to believe that that was the case because
she was seeking their support in coming weeks, because she
said she was thinking about getting gastric banding surgery to
assist with weight loss.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
And that during the recovery period she would need additional
family support with the kids, etc.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
So she said she was just alighting the actual requirement
for that support.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Okay, there was, of course an extensive list of lies
that were dissected, explained, re prosecuted during that testimony. We
did a whole podcast episode on that which actually you
led Lucy expertly, super super interesting. We will pop link
to that in the show notes if you want to
hear more. But we must move on or we'll spend
(11:43):
all day talking about the fascinating developments from that trial.
But after what ended up being ten weeks of hearings,
the judge finally gave quite extensive instructions to the jury
over several days before they began deliberations last week. What
are the key updates from that time? What do we
(12:03):
need to know?
Speaker 1 (12:04):
I think the biggest one to know is that Justice
Beale said Patterson needs to be presumed innocent until she's
proven guilty, and that the jury are the only ones
who can decide whether the prosecution has quote proven their
case beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, that's the threshold in
criminal cases. You've probably heard us on this podcast before
(12:27):
talk about how in civil cases it's a lower standard
of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities, is
it more likely than not that something happened or didn't happen.
But in a criminal case, it's you have to not
have any reasonable doubt in your mind that something occurred
the way that the prosecution presented it as happening. If
(12:50):
you have a reasonable doubt, you can't find a person
guilty of a crime.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
So it's like being ninety to one hundred percent sure
of something versus being fifty one percent sure of something.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
It's not even ninety it has to be one hundred
that you have to be. Well, certainly, I mean that's
what the defense said, right, But I think that is
also a legal principle that you can't have a doubt.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Yeah, So the jury had fifteen members throughout the trial.
We know that there were not fifteen jurors on the
stand yesterday when they came back into the court to
hand down their verdict. What was that process.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
So one DURA was dismissed during the trial. It was
reported they had been discussing the trial with their family members,
which is not allowed. Yep, jurors weren't sequestered. They weren't
kept separate from the rest of the world during the trial,
which is also partly why we have to be careful
in the media in terms of accidentally saying something that
(13:49):
could come across a juror's path that could influence their
decision making. So we were down to fourteen, and then
last week before the d began deliberating, two more were dismissed.
So the court system takes in more duras than will
actually make the.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
Decision, particularly in a high profile case like this.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Yeah, in case of illness or family emergency, any of
the reasons why people might not be able to complete
the full trial. So two were dismissed and then the
final twelve went on to They were then sequestered, which
means that they were kept separate from the rest of
the world, didn't go home for the days that they
were deliberating, were taken probably to a hotel, no media,
(14:35):
no phone, only the case and the deliberations every day.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
So they were essentially put into a lockdown bubble of
this jury where they had no communication with the outside world,
no access to any communication devices. It was you will
stay together until you can reach a decision.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Yes, and that had to be a unanimous decision, and
we now know a unanimous verdict of guilt on all
four charges.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
So tell me how it all unfolded on Monday. On
Monday afternoon we got the news. The newsroom here at
the Daily Os was ready to go. We've been waiting
for a while for this one. What charges specifically has
Aaron Patterson been found guilty of?
Speaker 1 (15:18):
So there's three. So there's account of murder of Don Patterson,
account of murder of Gail Patterson, account of murder of
Heather Wilkinson, and then another one of attempted murder for
Ian Wilkinson, who survived. That's about all we know in
terms of the juries, thinking that they collectively found Aaron
Patterson responsible beyond a reasonable doubt. Australian jurors are not
(15:43):
allowed to speak in the media about their decision making
and we will never know what was discussed in the
jury room.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Okay, so just to recap lucy, we've got three charges
of murder. Aaron Patterson has been found guilty of ye
one count of attempted murder guilty. Also, that's the disease there.
What happens now?
Speaker 1 (16:02):
So Erin is remanded in custody, she's awaiting being sentenced.
We don't yet know when she will be sentenced, okay, and.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
That decision will be up to the judge. The jury
are dismissed.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
Yep, that's it. The jury's jobs are done. They go
back to their lives. I mean, imagine just going back
to work tomorrow knowing that you couldn't talk about it. Yeah,
but yes, So basically, at this point, it's the legal
system takes over the prosecution. The defense makes submissions about
what they think the sentence should be. Okay, the maximum
sentence for murder is life. It's we just don't know, okay,
(16:35):
it's going to pan out there, But we know that
Erin is in custody. We also know that the next
time she appears in court will be for victim impact statements.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
What does that mean?
Speaker 1 (16:45):
So that means that the people who have been affected
by what a jury has now found were Erin's actions
will be able to speak to the court, to the judge,
and to Erin herself about the impact that this has
had on them. So I imagine we'll be hearing from
the families of well, yeah, I guess once upon a
(17:05):
time Erin's family, right, Erin's extended family, probably from Ian Wilkinson.
I'm just speculating, but I imagine when you think of
the people who've been affected, Don and Gale's other grandchildren,
Heber and Ian's grandchildren and children. Yep, yeah, we will
be hearing from them before sentencing is decided.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
That will be fascinating and we will keep an eye
on that. As Lucy said, the sentencing date is yet
to be set, but the murder charge in Victoria carries
life imprisonment, which is typically twenty five years. Attempted murder
also carries a maximum sentence of twenty five years, so
on maths alone, we're looking at a very very lengthy
(17:48):
prison sentence for Aaron Patterson. Lucy, thank you so much
for taking us through that, and thank you over the
course of these hearings for breaking it all down for
us and helping us get our heads around such a
complicated case, that's all we've got time for on today's episode.
We will be back later this afternoon with your latest
evening news headlines, but until then, have a great day.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Bunjelung Calkatin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges
that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Island and nations. We pay our respects to the
first peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Already and this is the daily This is the Daily
ohs oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Tuesday,
the eighth of July. I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
I'm Lucy Tassel.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Late yesterday afternoon, a long awaited verdict was handed down
in the mushroom murder trial of Aaron Patterson. A jury
found Patterson guilty on all three charges of murder, which
carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment in Victoria, and
she was also found guilty of attempted murder.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Pattison was charged after she served her estranged husband's relatives
a beef Wellington lunch that included deathcap mushrooms. Prosecutors alleged
she put them in the meal intentionally, while the defense
argued it was a mistake. Today we'll update you on
the latest in the trial, from verdict to sentencing, what
led to this moment and what comes next.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Lucy, You, like many of us, have been following this
case very closely over the last few months, even the
last couple of years. It's been a prominent story in
the Australian media landscape for some time. Now we finally
have a verdict. Can you walk us through what happened
in the case yesterday?
Speaker 1 (01:26):
So yesterday afternoon we all got the news alert that
the jury was finished their deliberations, which had taken about
a week. They went into being sequestered. We'll explain that
more later, but they went into deliberate last Monday, and
so they had come to a verdict. Justice Christopher Biale
presided over the reading of the verdict, which was delivered
(01:48):
to a packed court room in the Latrobe Valley Magistrates Court,
which is where all of this has taken place. In court,
there's differing accounts of Patterson's reaction. From the ABC, we
heard that she showed little emotion. From nine we heard
that she blinked a lot. That was kind of the
main reaction that she showed. But certainly there wasn't a
(02:11):
large emotional reaction.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
When she heard those verdicts. Yes on those four charges.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Yes, when she was read the verdict and she was
found guilty of three counts of murder. Those relate to
the deaths of Don Patterson and Gail Patterson. That's her
estranged husband, Simon's parents, and Heather Wilkinson, who is her
a strange husband. Simon's aunt. And then of course there's
the account of attempted murder that relates to Ian Wilkinson.
(02:41):
That's Heather's husband, so Simon's uncle, and he survived the lunch.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Okay. So, as we've kind of touched on, this is
a case that has captivated not just Australians but the
world ye for quite some time now. We've discussed the
details of it on the podcast, we've discussed the big
updates from what ended up being a ten week hearing.
But can you just give us a quick reminder of
how we got here? Tell us about that fateful lunch.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Yeah, So for those who are unfamiliar, who might have
forgotten the details in all of the information that's been
presented during the trial. So Aaron Patterson invited five people
over to lunch at her home in eastern Victoria and
the town of Leanngatha in July twenty twenty three. So
the people that she invited were her husband, Simon, so
they were estranged but still very much legally married, his
(03:34):
parents Don and Gale, and his aunt and uncle Heather
and Ian Wilkinson. The night before, Simon told erin via
text that he wouldn't be attending. We saw those texts
tended in court as evidence. Then the lunch went ahead anyway,
So Don Gale, Heather, Ian and Erin they all sit
down for a meal of beef wellington. So, for those
(03:58):
who don't know, a beef wellington.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Is a log of beef.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
It's coated in a mushroom paste called duk cell and
then it's wrapped in pastry. Aaron made individual beef wellington's
that differed from the recipe that she was using, which
came from the recipe Tin Eats cookbook Dinner Yep, which
is on the shelf probably in your home right now
(04:21):
given iconic, yeah best selling cookbook. Now, that recipe calls
for a single log. She chose to make individual slices.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Which we heard in court was because she couldn't find
a piece of steak or beef that was big enough
yea to make the log, so she made individual portions. That,
of course then was contested over the weeks of this hearing.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
Yes about whether or not she could have found her
evidence was that she couldn't find it. She bought individual steaks.
So following the lunch, Don Gaale, Heather and Ian all
become extremely unwell Aaron gave evidence that she also became unwell.
Her four guests or went to hospital. Erin then later
(05:04):
went to hospital. Don and Gail and Heather died in
hospital in the following days. Ian Wilkinson survived. He required
a liver transplant, but he did live and he attended court.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
And he was in hospital for a lengthy period.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Yes, you might have remembered the headlines around when he
came out of hospital. That that was kind of the
biggest development in that case in those later months of
twenty twenty three until Erin herself was charged in November
twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
And you mentioned there that Erin did go to hospital.
What do we know about her condition? How was she
physically after the lunch?
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Yeah, she was not as sick as her guests. That
is certainly not contested. She has given evidence that she
was sick. So she said that she had been having
diarrhea for days, took herself into the hospital to get
some fluids, and that's when doctors told her, Oh, you
are the person from this lunch that we've heard about.
(06:03):
Everyone else who was there is really really critically ill
and we're very worried about you. Did anyone else eat this.
She at that point said that her children had been
given some of the meal, but that she'd scraped the
mushrooms off because they don't like them, and they told
her her kids needed to come into hospital. She pretty
soon after checked herself out of hospital. She said that
(06:24):
was to deal with some things at home, like letting
out the dog, feeding the sheep that were in her paddock,
and then she later returned to hospital. But yeah, there's
contested evidence about how sick she actually was. It's certainly
clear that she didn't need a liver transplant, She didn't
need as much care as the others. One of the
(06:47):
reasons she gave for why that might be the case
is that she had a history of disordered eating, and
she said that she had binged and then thrown up
some of the food from the lunch. She suggested that
might be or rather the defense suggested that might be
why she wasn't as sick because it wasn't in her
(07:09):
system for as long.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
Okay, so that paints a little bit of a picture
of the defense, which we'll go into more shortly. But
what was the prosecution's case against Patterson, Because obviously this
is ultimately the successful argument.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Yeah, Yeah, it's kind of strange to be thinking about
that now. I feel like for the entire length of
the trial. It's obviously as responsible journalists you have to
be incredibly careful about what you say about a case
while it's still in the court, at risk of prejudicing
the jury. But yeah, it feels strange now to be
able to say one side has definitively exactly. I mean,
(07:47):
there could still be an appeal, but that's.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
We We will get to that.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
We'll get to that. Sorry, jumping ahead of myself. The
prosecution argument, which, as you said, has now been found
by the jury to be the more convincing. One. Prosecutors
argued Patterson to really put death cat mushrooms in the
beef Wellington to kill her guests. They painted a picture
of a woman who had two faces, a polite face
to her in laws in person and her real face
(08:12):
speaking to her Facebook friends online, expressing frustration about her
in law's role in her relationship with her estranged husband,
which had been cooling in recent years despite many years
of amicable separation. Okay, doctor Nannette Rodgers, she's the prosecutor,
She told the jury. Patterson had research deathcat mushrooms online
(08:33):
and purchased a dehydrator a food dehydrator to prepare them.
The prosecution presented evidence that Pattison lied repeatedly to police
about whether or not she foraged and whether or not
she had a dehydrator, and they also highlighted that Patterson
had thrown away the dehydrator at the tip just two
days before her police interview, which you probably have seen
(08:56):
the CCTV footage of.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Yeah, a lot was said about where the mushrooms came from,
whether or not she'd foraged them herself, whether or not
she'd purchased them from an Asian grosser, whether they were
in her pantry for a long period of time, and
she accidentally had death.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
Caps, which was the defense argument.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Yeah, exactly. So tell me a little bit more about
the defense argument.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Yeah, So, Pattison admitted on the stand that she had
foraged for mushrooms and then stored them in a tupperware container.
The defense's argument and her argument, was that if death
caps were mixed in, which she admitted was possible, it
was just a tragic accident, that she had never intentionally
foraged for poisonous mushrooms, and that they're ending up in
(09:40):
the meal, which she said was to add flavor to
the mushroom paste. The foraged mushrooms was just a mistake.
And I mentioned there that she took the stand, as
we would know, that's a very rare thing in court cases.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Yeah, I remember this case really taking a sharp turn
when we she earned that Aaron Patterson would be taking
the stand as witness to give testimony in her own trial.
She provided evidence over a period of several days.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Yeah, what was it?
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Key learnings and revelations from that time.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
The biggest one for me that I was safe to
say the most surprised to see someone admit on the
stand was Aaron admitted to telling several lies during her
original police interview. So we've touched on the foraging and
the dehydrator, so she lied. She told them she had
never foraged for mushrooms and that she didn't own a dehydrator.
(10:35):
I suppose that one sort of a half truth because
she at that moment did not own a dehydrator because
it was in the local tip, but she had owned
one until days earlier. On the stand, she also admitted
to misleading her guests about having cancer. She told the
court she wanted their support, but had never actually been
diagnosed with cancer. But she said that she kind of
(10:59):
led them to believe that that was the case because
she was seeking their support in coming weeks, because she
said she was thinking about getting gastric banding surgery to
assist with weight loss.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
And that during the recovery period she would need additional
family support with the kids, etc.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
So she said she was just alighting the actual requirement
for that support.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Okay, there was, of course an extensive list of lies
that were dissected, explained, re prosecuted during that testimony. We
did a whole podcast episode on that which actually you
led Lucy expertly, super super interesting. We will pop link
to that in the show notes if you want to
hear more. But we must move on or we'll spend
(11:43):
all day talking about the fascinating developments from that trial.
But after what ended up being ten weeks of hearings,
the judge finally gave quite extensive instructions to the jury
over several days before they began deliberations last week. What
are the key updates from that time? What do we
(12:03):
need to know?
Speaker 1 (12:04):
I think the biggest one to know is that Justice
Beale said Patterson needs to be presumed innocent until she's
proven guilty, and that the jury are the only ones
who can decide whether the prosecution has quote proven their
case beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, that's the threshold in
criminal cases. You've probably heard us on this podcast before
(12:27):
talk about how in civil cases it's a lower standard
of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities, is
it more likely than not that something happened or didn't happen.
But in a criminal case, it's you have to not
have any reasonable doubt in your mind that something occurred
the way that the prosecution presented it as happening. If
(12:50):
you have a reasonable doubt, you can't find a person
guilty of a crime.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
So it's like being ninety to one hundred percent sure
of something versus being fifty one percent sure of something.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
It's not even ninety it has to be one hundred
that you have to be. Well, certainly, I mean that's
what the defense said, right, But I think that is
also a legal principle that you can't have a doubt.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Yeah, So the jury had fifteen members throughout the trial.
We know that there were not fifteen jurors on the
stand yesterday when they came back into the court to
hand down their verdict. What was that process.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
So one DURA was dismissed during the trial. It was
reported they had been discussing the trial with their family members,
which is not allowed. Yep, jurors weren't sequestered. They weren't
kept separate from the rest of the world during the trial,
which is also partly why we have to be careful
in the media in terms of accidentally saying something that
(13:49):
could come across a juror's path that could influence their
decision making. So we were down to fourteen, and then
last week before the d began deliberating, two more were dismissed.
So the court system takes in more duras than will
actually make the.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
Decision, particularly in a high profile case like this.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Yeah, in case of illness or family emergency, any of
the reasons why people might not be able to complete
the full trial. So two were dismissed and then the
final twelve went on to They were then sequestered, which
means that they were kept separate from the rest of
the world, didn't go home for the days that they
were deliberating, were taken probably to a hotel, no media,
(14:35):
no phone, only the case and the deliberations every day.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
So they were essentially put into a lockdown bubble of
this jury where they had no communication with the outside world,
no access to any communication devices. It was you will
stay together until you can reach a decision.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Yes, and that had to be a unanimous decision, and
we now know a unanimous verdict of guilt on all
four charges.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
So tell me how it all unfolded on Monday. On
Monday afternoon we got the news. The newsroom here at
the Daily Os was ready to go. We've been waiting
for a while for this one. What charges specifically has
Aaron Patterson been found guilty of?
Speaker 1 (15:18):
So there's three. So there's account of murder of Don Patterson,
account of murder of Gail Patterson, account of murder of
Heather Wilkinson, and then another one of attempted murder for
Ian Wilkinson, who survived. That's about all we know in
terms of the juries, thinking that they collectively found Aaron
Patterson responsible beyond a reasonable doubt. Australian jurors are not
(15:43):
allowed to speak in the media about their decision making
and we will never know what was discussed in the
jury room.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Okay, so just to recap lucy, we've got three charges
of murder. Aaron Patterson has been found guilty of ye
one count of attempted murder guilty. Also, that's the disease there.
What happens now?
Speaker 1 (16:02):
So Erin is remanded in custody, she's awaiting being sentenced.
We don't yet know when she will be sentenced, okay, and.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
That decision will be up to the judge. The jury
are dismissed.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
Yep, that's it. The jury's jobs are done. They go
back to their lives. I mean, imagine just going back
to work tomorrow knowing that you couldn't talk about it. Yeah,
but yes, So basically, at this point, it's the legal
system takes over the prosecution. The defense makes submissions about
what they think the sentence should be. Okay, the maximum
sentence for murder is life. It's we just don't know, okay,
(16:35):
it's going to pan out there, But we know that
Erin is in custody. We also know that the next
time she appears in court will be for victim impact statements.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
What does that mean?
Speaker 1 (16:45):
So that means that the people who have been affected
by what a jury has now found were Erin's actions
will be able to speak to the court, to the judge,
and to Erin herself about the impact that this has
had on them. So I imagine we'll be hearing from
the families of well, yeah, I guess once upon a
(17:05):
time Erin's family, right, Erin's extended family, probably from Ian Wilkinson.
I'm just speculating, but I imagine when you think of
the people who've been affected, Don and Gale's other grandchildren,
Heber and Ian's grandchildren and children. Yep, yeah, we will
be hearing from them before sentencing is decided.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
That will be fascinating and we will keep an eye
on that. As Lucy said, the sentencing date is yet
to be set, but the murder charge in Victoria carries
life imprisonment, which is typically twenty five years. Attempted murder
also carries a maximum sentence of twenty five years, so
on maths alone, we're looking at a very very lengthy
(17:48):
prison sentence for Aaron Patterson. Lucy, thank you so much
for taking us through that, and thank you over the
course of these hearings for breaking it all down for
us and helping us get our heads around such a
complicated case, that's all we've got time for on today's episode.
We will be back later this afternoon with your latest
evening news headlines, but until then, have a great day.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Bunjelung Calkatin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges
that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Island and nations. We pay our respects to the
first peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.