June 8, 2025 • 30 mins
This episode is from Friday's transcript from the Erin Patterson murder trial, focusing on the prosecutor's examination of Erin's Facebook messages and her account of inviting Simon and his parents to the fatal lunch.
• Lisa hosts with guest Louise
• Erin's Facebook messages allegedly reveal frustrations with ex-husband Simon and his parents
• Messages include phrases like "I'm sick of this shit" and "f them" which Erin claims were just venting
• A Witness testified that Erin had portrayed Simon as a poor father and complained about him to online friends
• Did Erin mention "important medical news" when inviting Simon to lunch
• Simon's text declining the invitation and Erin's response urging him to reconsider become key evidence
• The prosecution suggests Erin deliberately kept her children away from the lunch where mushrooms were served
• Testimony examines what the prosecution claims as a deteriorating relationship between Erin, Simon, and his parents in months before the incident
Thanks for listening. For more information, visit my website. Make sure you subscribe to my newsletter on www.mushroommurdertrial.com, it's jam-packed with news about the trial. Plus I'm on Instagram at Erin underscore pod. You can find me on Facebook. Just search the podcast, the mushroom Murder Trial podcast. I also will put links in the show notes to those social media accounts.
And if you were feeling like rewarding me for the thousands of hours I’ve spent on this work, I have a buy me a coffee membership which allows you to pay $5 as a thanks and I get a coffee. This goes towards the editing, studio hire, liability \insurance, equipment, sound and voiceovers. Plus there’s exclusive membership material on the site, just for you.
Instagram @Erin_Podcast
Twitter @lisapodcasts
Mushroom Murder Trial Website Facebook page
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello and welcome to the Mushroom Murder Trial
podcast.
My name is Lisa and I have avery special guest today.
She is Lake Macquarie's numberone Real Housewives of Sydney.
Podcaster, louise, how are you?
Speaker 2 (00:16):
I'm great Lisa, Lovely to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Lovely to be here.
I've actually forgotten thename of what our podcast was
when we were doing that the RealHousewives of Sydney Snark.
Yes.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
We really need to revisit Season 2 because it's a
bit juicy.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Yeah, we might have to after this and after you
finish your 1,000 jobs thatyou've got.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Well, that's true, I mean, I do love a project.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
And here's one for you.
On a Sunday morning.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Yes, I know, only for you would I work on Sundays.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
But and also it's a long weekend too, so thank you,
and thank you for everyone forlistening today.
We're delighted to have youhere.
We are going to read part ofFriday's transcript in the Erin
Patterson case.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
I'm obviously the prosecutor, right, and you are
Erin, yeah, and you pitched itto me like it's the role of a
lifetime.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Well, mine is also the role of a lifetime.
This Dr Rogers is so smart, sheseriously doesn't miss a thing.
But also Mr Mandy Erin'sbarrister he doesn't miss a
thing either.
There's some very smart peoplein that room.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Yeah, great, Okay.
Well, I'm excited to get intoit.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Shall we go.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
We shall Okay.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
On page six, there's a message that you sent on
Facebook Messenger dated the 7thof December 2022 at 11.20.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
Page seven Quote Simon wants to walk away from
his responsibilities too.
Well, that's his choice.
Maybe it's easier if he's notinvolved in even paying their
school fees, means I can choosetheir school all by myself and I
don't have to refer to him.
If he wants them to go toschool, then he can help pay for
(02:08):
it.
If he doesn't want to help payfor it, then I don't have to
send him there, do I?
So maybe it just means I haveeven more freedom about my
choices?
A blessing in disguise.
So you agree that you sent themessage on the 7th of December?
Speaker 2 (02:26):
I did.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
To your online friends.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
I did.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Do you still say that you consulted Simon before
moving the children to their newschool?
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Again, it matters what you mean by consult.
Did you mean I asked hispermission, or do you mean did I
tell him Advise, tell, I didadvise, I did tell.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
Yes, so you still say in your position that you did
tell him in March.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
I did.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
And I suggest that you didn't.
But you disagree with that.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
I do disagree.
In fact he went on theenrolment forms and the school
fees forms for before that termstarted.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Is it your evidence that there was a change in their
relationship with Simon afterthe disputes about the child
support and the school fees?
Yes, there was.
Tanya Patterson has givenevidence that in the year
leading up to the July 2023lunch, she noticed that the
relationship between the two ofyou had deteriorated a bit and
you both no longer interacted asmuch together.
(03:37):
Would you agree with that?
Speaker 2 (03:39):
I agree she said that , but then I remember she also
said that there was possiblyonly the last six months from
January 23, and I agree withthat.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Tanya also said and Simon didn't go on the Christmas
holiday that year to NewZealand with you and the
children and he didn't, did he,that's correct, he did not come.
And was that because therelationship between you and
Simon had altered?
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Um, I don't think I could.
He didn't want to go to NewZealand, that wasn't.
He went to Brisbane to visitfriends.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Matthew Patterson gave evidence that in recent
years before the lunch youdidn't participate a lot in
family functions.
You heard him give thatevidence.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
Yeah, yeah, I did hear him say that.
Yes, and do you?
Speaker 1 (04:30):
agree with that.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
No.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
Is it your evidence that you did participate a lot
in family functions?
Yeah, in the recent years.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
before the lunch so up until the first half of 2023,
I don't believe there was achange in my participation.
I think there was a change infamily events through some of
that time because there was alot of covid lockdowns in 21
which affected how manygatherings there were.
But other than that, if therewas a gathering and I was
(05:02):
invited, I went, went.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
So you say Matthew Patterson is incorrect when he
says that in recent years beforethe lunch you didn't
participate a lot in familyfunctions?
Speaker 2 (05:14):
I think he's wrong about that timeframe.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
yes, he also gave evidence that the conversations
between you and Simon were lesscasual than they had been
previously.
This is before the lunch.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Yeah, that's true for that last six months.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
yes, Okay, so one of the children gave evidence
through a recorded statement andevidence that, while you remain
married to each other, theinteractions between you both
before the lunch were verynegative.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
He did say that.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Yes, do you agree with that observation of your
son?
Speaker 2 (05:53):
I think our interactions were strained, yes,
strained, yeah, they were.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
Not very negative.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
It depends what they mean by negative.
But I mean I think we havealready agreed several times
that our relationship changed inthat last six months.
I think everybody has agreedwith that.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
I want to ask you some questions now about your
account of your relationshipwith Simon and his parents, and
I want to take you to Exhibit 54, page 3.
Do you need to read it?
Speaker 2 (06:28):
I know what it says.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
If that, answers your question.
This is a message from you yousent on Facebook Messenger on 6
December 2022 at 10.19am.
Yes, you recount that in thatmessage about Simon's dad, Don,
contacting you.
Yes, and then at the end of themessage you say quote this
(06:53):
family.
I swear to fucking God.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
I did write that.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
This expressed your true feelings about Don and Gail
Patterson, didn't it?
Speaker 2 (07:02):
No.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
I suggest that you are wrong about that, Uh no, I'm
not wrong.
Go to page four, please, of thesame exhibit.
The top message is from you toyour Facebook friends.
It is Quote I said to him about50 times yesterday I didn't
want them to adjudicate.
Now that's a reference to Don,correct.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Yeah, it is.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Quote no body bloody listens to me.
At least I know they're a lostcause.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
I did write that.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
You sent it at 10.27am.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
And again I suggest it expressed how you truly felt
about Don and Gail that theywere a lost cause.
No Agree or disagree, disagree.
The next message below that,6-12-22 at 10-38 am, sent by you
on Facebook Messenger.
(08:03):
Correct the first line.
I wonder if they've got anycapacity for self-reflection at
all.
You sent that.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
I did, I sent the whole message.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Do you need to read the rest of the message?
Speaker 2 (08:19):
No.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Do you agree that you are critical of Simon Patterson
in that message?
Speaker 2 (08:24):
Yes, I was.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Do you agree that you were sheeting some of his
behaviour back to his parents?
Speaker 2 (08:32):
It does look like I did that, yes.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
Well, you did do it, didn't you?
I was doing it.
There's nothing seeming aboutit.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
I was doing that, yes .
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Page five, the same exhibit.
Do you need to read that?
Speaker 2 (08:48):
No.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
It reads in part Don rang me last night to say he
thought there was a solution toall of this if Simon and I get
together and try and talk andpray together.
And there are two emojis whichyou dispute are eye-rolling
emojis.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
I do.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Now we're in court and this is Lisa here discussing
emojis and the meanings ofemojis.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
I know the emoji she's talking about.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
So anyway, Louise, I was just saying that.
How many times do you thinkemojis come up these days?
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Well, I don't know.
I mean, and you know, they canbe interpreted lots of different
ways, can't they?
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Well, and there's so many emojis in the world, so
many Different ones.
Absolutely Depends whatkeyboard you're using, what
phone, what device 100%.
So that's just Lisa and Louisegiving our opinion on emojis.
Absolutely Depends whatkeyboard you're using, what
phone, what device A hundredpercent.
So that's just Lisa and Louisegiving our opinion on emojis.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Are you actually cooking eggplant?
Speaker 1 (09:53):
Oh, my goodness Right , keep it serious, keep it
serious.
We're in court, we're in court,and there are two emojis which
you dispute are eye-rollingemojis.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
I do.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
A little further down , you said Don messaged to say
he and Gail don't want to getinvolved in the financial things
, but just, we will pray for thekids.
Again, there's an emoji thatyou say is not an eye-rolling
emoji, correct.
Further down, that's when Donsaid they tried to talk to him
(10:31):
that is Simon but he refused totalk about it.
So they're staying out of itbut want us to pray together.
I'm sick of this shit.
I want nothing to do with them.
Correct.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
I did write that.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
I thought his parents would want him to do the right
thing, but it seems they'reconcerned about not wanting to
feel uncomfortable and notwanting to get involved in their
son's personal matters.
Are overriding that, so fuckthem.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
I did write that.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
You wrote that I did.
That's what you thought about,gail, and Don correct, fuck them
.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
I wrote that and I was venting and I was frustrated
.
But I regret writing it and I'mashamed that I wrote that.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
I suggest these were your true feelings about how you
thought of Gail and Don.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
I disagree.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
And you weren't venting.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
I was venting.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
And that these feelings, these true feelings
that you had persisted throughto July 2023, correct, incorrect
and early August no Sameexhibit.
Exhibit F, page 6.
Oh sorry, exhibit 54.
You're right, page 6.
Oh sorry, exhibit 54.
You're right, page 6.
This is a message from you.
(11:45):
It is.
Dated the 7th of December 2022at 11.20am it is.
His parents sent me a messageyesterday afternoon and Simon
sent me one last night, but I'veread neither and I don't think
I will.
I don't want to hear it.
Simon's will just be horribleand be gaslighting and abusive
(12:07):
and it will ruin my day, and hisparents' message will be more
weasel words about not gettinginvolved.
You wrote those words, I did.
I suggest again that you wereangry.
They did not take your sideagainst Simon Patterson, correct
or incorrect?
Speaker 2 (12:23):
No, I wasn't angry, but I was frustrated and hurt.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
So you were frustrated and hurt when you
wrote the previous message offuck them.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Yeah, I was.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
Not angry.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
No.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
Tell you what YouTube is going to have.
A.
They're going to be not passingthis on because you know how it
doesn't like swearing.
Yeah, I don't know, it's gotsome kind of profanity filler,
so sorry.
If you want to listen onYouTube you'll have to dig Right
.
Same exhibit, page eight.
You can read that message.
You can see it.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Sorry, the water just got stuck in my throat.
Do you want?
Speaker 1 (13:05):
me to read it out loud or just read it.
No, I just want to make sureyou know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Yes, I do.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Quote his mum was horrified that I had claimed
child support.
Yes, why isn't she horrifiedthat her son is such a deadbeat
that I had no choice but toclaim?
That's the message you sent.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
I did.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
I suggest you were unhappy with Gail's response
about you claiming child supportat this point I don't know if I
was happy or unhappy.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
I mean, clearly I wasn't happy, but I don't think
unhappy is the right way to putit either, but I was frustrated,
I think.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
And hurt.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
I don't think hurt is reflected in this message.
I was frustrated, I was hurtabout a lot of things.
Yeah, I was.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
I want to go.
I've finished with that exhibitnow.
Thank you.
I now want to go to yourFacebook friend's evidence.
Christine Hunt gave evidenceand I'll break it down.
She said that you painted Simonas a father who was coercive.
You remember her saying that.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
Yeah, I do.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Who disagreed with you a lot.
You heard her say that.
I did disagreed with you a lotyou heard her say that I did and
in particular around somefollowing up of medical issues.
If one of the kids was not.
Well, yeah, she did say that.
She said you never seemed happywith his follow-up and his
commitment to what was happening.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
Yes, she did say that .
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Was what Christine Hunt gave evidence of,
consistent with what you hadtold her about, simon.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
No.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Okay, so I'll break it down then.
Okay, First, her evidence wasyou painted Simon as a father
who was coercive.
Agree that you told ChristineHunt that or disagree.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Disagree.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
She also said that you told her Simon disagreed
with you a lot and in particular, around some following up
medical issues if one of thechild wasn't well, did you tell
her that or not?
Speaker 2 (15:12):
No.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
Did you tell her that you were never happy, or seemed
happy, with his follow-up andhis commitment to what was
happening?
Speaker 2 (15:21):
I'm not sure what she's referring to there
Follow-up about what I don'tknow what she's talking about.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
Do you agree that you posted that Simon Patterson was
not a good father?
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Posted where?
Do you mean in the Facebookgroup?
I was in with Christine.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Yes, no, yes in with Christine.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
Yes, no.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Yes, with Christine Hunt.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
No.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
I didn't.
I want to go now to DanielaBarkley.
Her evidence was I'll break itdown as we go Sure, you posted
this is her evidence you postedon the Facebook group that Simon
wasn't a very nice person.
You heard her give thatevidence the Facebook group that
Simon wasn't a very nice person.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
You heard her give that evidence.
Can you just clarify for me?
Did she say I posted that in agroup or I said that in our
private chat, Because that makesa difference as to whether I
did it or not.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Well, did you do it on both oh?
Speaker 2 (16:19):
I definitely discussed my relationship with
Simon in the private group chat.
I don't remember saying hewasn't a very nice person.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Well, that was the evidence she gave in this trial.
She did give that, yeah, so didyou say it on a post that
Daniela Barkley read.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
I don't know if I did or I didn't.
I might have.
I might have said that in aprivate group chat.
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
Daniela Barkley also gave evidence that you weren't
happy with his cleanliness.
That's true?
You heard her say that, yes,and is that the truth that you
told her or that you posted that?
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Yeah, it is true, because I had to spend two weeks
cleaning his house at one point.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
Daniela Barclay also said that you didn't want the
kids to sleep over there atnight because you weren't happy
with the way he lived.
That's true yeah, so you toldher that.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
I possibly or not told, but posted.
I probably discussed that inthe chat with those four or five
women.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
yeah, Well, and Daniela Barclay was one of those
women?
Correct?
She was.
Yes, katrina Cripps' evidencewas that you told her and Naomi
Schroeder, on 1st of August 2023, that Simon had been mean to
you, but never nasty.
Yeah, I think I did say thatyes, did you tell Katrina Cripps
(17:49):
and Naomi Schroeder that SimonPatterson had become nasty
towards you after you claimedchild support?
That was the evidence of MissCrisp.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
Yeah, I did say that, yes.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
Yep, I'm moving to a different topic and this is
about your lunch invitation toSimon Patterson.
His evidence was that after thechurch service on the 16th of
July 2023, you approached himwhile he was sitting down at the
laptop sound mixing desk.
(18:22):
So I'll ask you to break itdown.
So you agree, you approachedhim on the 16th of July.
Yes, his evidence was that yousaid to him you had some
important medical news that youwanted some advice on.
He did say that.
Did you say it to him?
No, you disagree.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
I disagree.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Simon's evidence was that you said you had some
important medical news.
You wanted some advice on.
You dispute that quote, how tobreak it to the kids, that
phrase.
He did say that.
Yes, you heard him give thatevidence.
Yes, Did you say that to him?
Speaker 2 (19:02):
I did not.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
A continuation of his evidence is.
So you're inviting Don and Gail, mum and dad and Heather and
Ian and him to the lunch todiscuss that topic?
You heard him give thatevidence.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
What you just said, then are you saying that he said
that.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Yes, I'll read it again, but I'll do it again.
Yes, please, if you're unclear,sorry, that's you.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
Yep.
Sorry, I'm getting confused.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
I don't want you to be misled.
Yeah, simon Patterson, yep,gave evidence.
I'llled.
Yeah, simon Patterson, yep,gave evidence.
I'll recap Okay, that after thechurch service on the 16 July.
Yeah, you approached him whilehe was at the sound mixing desk.
Yes, you agreed that you didnot do that.
(19:57):
That's true.
Yes, his evidence is that yousaid you had some important
medical news, that you wantedsome advice on how to break it
to the kids.
You disagree, I disagree.
You say that that's not true,correct.
You didn't say that at all toSimon Patterson.
(20:17):
I did not say that.
Simon Patterson's evidence.
So you were inviting Don andGail, mum and dad, and Heather
and Ian and him to lunch.
So this is recounting theconversation that he had with
you.
Yep, so you told him you'reinviting Don, gail, mum and Dad,
(20:39):
in other words, and Heather andIan and Minimum to lunch to
discuss the topic.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Okay, no, that's not what I said to him.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
So did you tell him you were inviting his parents,
heather and Ian, and him tolunch?
Speaker 2 (20:59):
I told him that I'd already invited Ian and Heather
and Don and Gail, and I invitedhim as well.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
yes, but you dispute that.
You said to Simon to discussthat topic.
That is the important medicalnews.
Yes, that you wanted advice onhow to break it to the kids.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
Correct.
That wasn't the purpose of thelunch or the purpose of the
invitations.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
No, I'm not asking about the purpose of the lunch
or the purpose of the invitation.
I'm asking about the.
Isn't that what that means?
Speaker 2 (21:33):
That's me.
Oh sorry.
Is that what that means?
That you said I was invitingthem to discuss the medical
issues?
That implies purpose.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
That you wanted advice on how to break that to
the kid Correct.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
That wasn't the purpose of the lunch or the
purpose of the invitations.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
No, I'm not asking about the purpose of lunch or
the purpose of the invitations.
No, I'm not asking about thepurpose of lunch or the purpose
of the invitations.
I'm asking you about thatword's unclear.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Isn't that what that means, that you said I was
inviting them to discuss themedical issues?
That implies purpose, does itnot?
Unless I'm misunderstanding.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Simon's evidence is that you said to him you're
inviting his parents and Ian andHeather to lunch to discuss
important medical news, that youwanted some advice on how to
break that to the kids.
Yes, that's what I'm asking youabout.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
Yes, he did say that, but I did not say that to him.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
Did you ask if he'd be able to come on the 29th of
July 2023?
I did, so that's correct.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
Yeah, I did invite him to lunch.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
Yes, that's true, and that was Simon's evidence that
you did say to him he would beable to come to lunch on the
29th.
It is yes.
He also said you were keen forthe lunch not to be with the
kids.
You heard him say that.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
I did.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Did you say that to Simon or not?
Speaker 2 (23:06):
I did not.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
Simon's evidence was that he said he would attend the
lunch and you agreed.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
He did.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
Because that was your evidence in chief, wasn't it
Correct?
He did.
You asked him if he'd come tolunch and he agreed that he
would he did.
This is on the 16th of July.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
Simon's evidence was that you'd already invited his
parents, ian and Heather.
Yes, and they were going tocome.
Yes, and you were inviting himas well, correct?
That was his evidence, yep, soI want to make sure that I
understand your evidence.
On the 16th of July you invitedSimon to lunch for the 29th of
(23:50):
July I did, and you told himyou'd already invited Don and
Gail and Ian and Heather,correct?
I suggest to you you thoughtSimon would be more likely to
accept the invitation if he knewhis parents and Ian and Heather
were also attending.
Agree or disagree?
I would disagree with that.
I suggest that you did.
(24:10):
Forgive me if I'm suggestingthis twice.
You deny saying you told Simonyou had some important medical
news, that you wanted someadvice on how to break that to
the kids, correct?
Correct?
You flatly deny that, do you?
Speaker 2 (24:26):
I deny it.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
I suggest you told him you had a medical issue to
encourage him to attend.
Correct or incorrect?
Speaker 2 (24:34):
No incorrect.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
I suggest that this was also your excuse for while
the children were not present atthe lunch, and I assume you
disagree with that.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
I do disagree with that.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
I suggest that, in fact, you did not want your
children to be present for thelunch because you wanted to
ensure that there was no waythey could eat the meal that you
were planning to serve to yourguests on July 29.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
No, that's not true.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
Could I take you to exhibit two, please?
Are you able to read the screen?
Speaker 2 (25:06):
I can thank you.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
The top message is from Simon Patterson to you.
It is On the 28th of July 2023at 6.54pm.
Yes, Okay, we need a Simonvoice now, don't we?
We'll have to see if we canfind someone to be Simon.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Do you want me to?
Speaker 1 (25:28):
Drop it down a bit.
Yeah, no, it's okay, I'll justdo it in my best prosecutor
voice.
Sorry, I feel too uncomfortableabout coming to the lunch with
you Mum, dad, heather and Iantomorrow, but I'm happy to talk
about your health andimplications of that at another
time.
If you'd like to discuss on thephone, just let me know.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
He did say that.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
I suggest that the words in his message I'm happy
to talk about your health andthe implications of that is a
direct reference to you tellinghim on July 16 you had some
important medical news.
I disagree.
You responded to that message.
It's the blue message at thebottom.
It is.
You sent that the same evening6.59pm.
(26:15):
I did.
That was your response.
It was.
Do you agree that you urged himto reconsider in your message
to him?
I did.
Do you agree?
You said that?
Quote.
Sorry, you told him.
Quote may not be able to host alunch like this again for some
time, correct?
Speaker 2 (26:37):
I did say that.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
I suggest that you wrote and used those words to
make it seem like the medicalissue was the reason, correct or
incorrect?
Speaker 2 (26:47):
I don't understand the question, so I can't answer
it.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
Okay, I'll start again.
You can see in that message.
Okay, you've read the messageout and I'll please show.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
Sure, that's really disappointing.
I've spent many hours this weekpreparing for lunch for
tomorrow, which has beenexhausting in light of the
issues I'm facing, and spent asmall fortune on beef eye fillet
to make beef wellingtonsbecause I wanted it to be a
special meal.
As I may not be able to host alunch like this again for some
time, it's important to me thatyou're all there tomorrow and
(27:22):
that I can have theconversations that I need to
have.
I hope you'll change your mind.
Your parents and Heather andIan are coming at 12.30.
I hope to see you there.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
All right.
So in the second line you'vewritten, which has been
exhaustive in light of theissues I'm facing, yes, I
suggest that you are in that,the use of that phrase
purporting to refer to themedical issues you told him
about on 16 July.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Yeah, I did.
I did tell him on the 16th ofJuly that I wanted to discuss
some medical stuff at the lunch.
That is true, but I did not sayto him serious, important
medical news to break to thekids.
That's the purpose and that'sthe purpose of the lunch.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
All right.
So when I asked you a littleearlier, did you say to him that
you had important medical news,that you wanted some advice on
what was it about that youdisagreed important.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
That I said it was important and that I said I
wanted advice on it, on how tobreak it to the kids.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
Okay, so on the 16th of July you agreed that you told
Simon that you had some medicalnews that you wanted some
advice on.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
No, I think I just disagreed with that.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
Now we have to stop here now because the Supreme
Court owns the copyright to thistranscript, so we don't want to
violate fair use.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
Right.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
So, Louise, we have to thank you for being the first
ever guest on the MushroomMurder Trial podcast.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
I'm very honoured.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
I always drag you into my stuff, don't I?
Speaker 2 (29:01):
You do, but look I love it because it's just you
know Never a dull moment, nevera dull moment.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
So thank you everyone for listening.
Make sure you go to my website,Sign up for the newsletter.
It's free and I'm putting oneout today and there'll be all
sorts of interesting information.
Also, if you'd like to buy me acoffee $5, but only if you can
See I could actually buy Louisea coffee yeah, that'd be nice,
(29:30):
but only if you can afford it.
Otherwise, you just being hereis incredible, amazing.
We really appreciate it.
And if you're in Australia,happy long weekend.
And also the links to the showare in the show notes.
All my socials Buy me a coffeeAnything else, Louise?
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Well, I don't think so, just other than you're
fabulous.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
So are you, babe.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
Love you.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
Love you too.
All right, everyone, have afabulous weekend.
Enjoy your day off tomorrow, ifyou've got one, and we shall
talk soon.
Thanks, bye.
Hello and welcome to the Mushroom Murder Trial
podcast.
My name is Lisa and I have avery special guest today.
She is Lake Macquarie's numberone Real Housewives of Sydney.
Podcaster, louise, how are you?
Speaker 2 (00:16):
I'm great Lisa, Lovely to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Lovely to be here.
I've actually forgotten thename of what our podcast was
when we were doing that the RealHousewives of Sydney Snark.
Yes.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
We really need to revisit Season 2 because it's a
bit juicy.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Yeah, we might have to after this and after you
finish your 1,000 jobs thatyou've got.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Well, that's true, I mean, I do love a project.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
And here's one for you.
On a Sunday morning.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Yes, I know, only for you would I work on Sundays.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
But and also it's a long weekend too, so thank you,
and thank you for everyone forlistening today.
We're delighted to have youhere.
We are going to read part ofFriday's transcript in the Erin
Patterson case.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
I'm obviously the prosecutor, right, and you are
Erin, yeah, and you pitched itto me like it's the role of a
lifetime.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Well, mine is also the role of a lifetime.
This Dr Rogers is so smart, sheseriously doesn't miss a thing.
But also Mr Mandy Erin'sbarrister he doesn't miss a
thing either.
There's some very smart peoplein that room.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Yeah, great, Okay.
Well, I'm excited to get intoit.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Shall we go.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
We shall Okay.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
On page six, there's a message that you sent on
Facebook Messenger dated the 7thof December 2022 at 11.20.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
Page seven Quote Simon wants to walk away from
his responsibilities too.
Well, that's his choice.
Maybe it's easier if he's notinvolved in even paying their
school fees, means I can choosetheir school all by myself and I
don't have to refer to him.
If he wants them to go toschool, then he can help pay for
(02:08):
it.
If he doesn't want to help payfor it, then I don't have to
send him there, do I?
So maybe it just means I haveeven more freedom about my
choices?
A blessing in disguise.
So you agree that you sent themessage on the 7th of December?
Speaker 2 (02:26):
I did.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
To your online friends.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
I did.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Do you still say that you consulted Simon before
moving the children to their newschool?
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Again, it matters what you mean by consult.
Did you mean I asked hispermission, or do you mean did I
tell him Advise, tell, I didadvise, I did tell.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
Yes, so you still say in your position that you did
tell him in March.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
I did.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
And I suggest that you didn't.
But you disagree with that.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
I do disagree.
In fact he went on theenrolment forms and the school
fees forms for before that termstarted.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Is it your evidence that there was a change in their
relationship with Simon afterthe disputes about the child
support and the school fees?
Yes, there was.
Tanya Patterson has givenevidence that in the year
leading up to the July 2023lunch, she noticed that the
relationship between the two ofyou had deteriorated a bit and
you both no longer interacted asmuch together.
(03:37):
Would you agree with that?
Speaker 2 (03:39):
I agree she said that , but then I remember she also
said that there was possiblyonly the last six months from
January 23, and I agree withthat.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Tanya also said and Simon didn't go on the Christmas
holiday that year to NewZealand with you and the
children and he didn't, did he,that's correct, he did not come.
And was that because therelationship between you and
Simon had altered?
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Um, I don't think I could.
He didn't want to go to NewZealand, that wasn't.
He went to Brisbane to visitfriends.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Matthew Patterson gave evidence that in recent
years before the lunch youdidn't participate a lot in
family functions.
You heard him give thatevidence.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
Yeah, yeah, I did hear him say that.
Yes, and do you?
Speaker 1 (04:30):
agree with that.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
No.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
Is it your evidence that you did participate a lot
in family functions?
Yeah, in the recent years.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
before the lunch so up until the first half of 2023,
I don't believe there was achange in my participation.
I think there was a change infamily events through some of
that time because there was alot of covid lockdowns in 21
which affected how manygatherings there were.
But other than that, if therewas a gathering and I was
(05:02):
invited, I went, went.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
So you say Matthew Patterson is incorrect when he
says that in recent years beforethe lunch you didn't
participate a lot in familyfunctions?
Speaker 2 (05:14):
I think he's wrong about that timeframe.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
yes, he also gave evidence that the conversations
between you and Simon were lesscasual than they had been
previously.
This is before the lunch.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Yeah, that's true for that last six months.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
yes, Okay, so one of the children gave evidence
through a recorded statement andevidence that, while you remain
married to each other, theinteractions between you both
before the lunch were verynegative.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
He did say that.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Yes, do you agree with that observation of your
son?
Speaker 2 (05:53):
I think our interactions were strained, yes,
strained, yeah, they were.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
Not very negative.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
It depends what they mean by negative.
But I mean I think we havealready agreed several times
that our relationship changed inthat last six months.
I think everybody has agreedwith that.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
I want to ask you some questions now about your
account of your relationshipwith Simon and his parents, and
I want to take you to Exhibit 54, page 3.
Do you need to read it?
Speaker 2 (06:28):
I know what it says.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
If that, answers your question.
This is a message from you yousent on Facebook Messenger on 6
December 2022 at 10.19am.
Yes, you recount that in thatmessage about Simon's dad, Don,
contacting you.
Yes, and then at the end of themessage you say quote this
(06:53):
family.
I swear to fucking God.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
I did write that.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
This expressed your true feelings about Don and Gail
Patterson, didn't it?
Speaker 2 (07:02):
No.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
I suggest that you are wrong about that, Uh no, I'm
not wrong.
Go to page four, please, of thesame exhibit.
The top message is from you toyour Facebook friends.
It is Quote I said to him about50 times yesterday I didn't
want them to adjudicate.
Now that's a reference to Don,correct.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Yeah, it is.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Quote no body bloody listens to me.
At least I know they're a lostcause.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
I did write that.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
You sent it at 10.27am.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
And again I suggest it expressed how you truly felt
about Don and Gail that theywere a lost cause.
No Agree or disagree, disagree.
The next message below that,6-12-22 at 10-38 am, sent by you
on Facebook Messenger.
(08:03):
Correct the first line.
I wonder if they've got anycapacity for self-reflection at
all.
You sent that.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
I did, I sent the whole message.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Do you need to read the rest of the message?
Speaker 2 (08:19):
No.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Do you agree that you are critical of Simon Patterson
in that message?
Speaker 2 (08:24):
Yes, I was.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Do you agree that you were sheeting some of his
behaviour back to his parents?
Speaker 2 (08:32):
It does look like I did that, yes.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
Well, you did do it, didn't you?
I was doing it.
There's nothing seeming aboutit.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
I was doing that, yes .
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Page five, the same exhibit.
Do you need to read that?
Speaker 2 (08:48):
No.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
It reads in part Don rang me last night to say he
thought there was a solution toall of this if Simon and I get
together and try and talk andpray together.
And there are two emojis whichyou dispute are eye-rolling
emojis.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
I do.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Now we're in court and this is Lisa here discussing
emojis and the meanings ofemojis.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
I know the emoji she's talking about.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
So anyway, Louise, I was just saying that.
How many times do you thinkemojis come up these days?
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Well, I don't know.
I mean, and you know, they canbe interpreted lots of different
ways, can't they?
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Well, and there's so many emojis in the world, so
many Different ones.
Absolutely Depends whatkeyboard you're using, what
phone, what device 100%.
So that's just Lisa and Louisegiving our opinion on emojis.
Absolutely Depends whatkeyboard you're using, what
phone, what device A hundredpercent.
So that's just Lisa and Louisegiving our opinion on emojis.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Are you actually cooking eggplant?
Speaker 1 (09:53):
Oh, my goodness Right , keep it serious, keep it
serious.
We're in court, we're in court,and there are two emojis which
you dispute are eye-rollingemojis.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
I do.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
A little further down , you said Don messaged to say
he and Gail don't want to getinvolved in the financial things
, but just, we will pray for thekids.
Again, there's an emoji thatyou say is not an eye-rolling
emoji, correct.
Further down, that's when Donsaid they tried to talk to him
(10:31):
that is Simon but he refused totalk about it.
So they're staying out of itbut want us to pray together.
I'm sick of this shit.
I want nothing to do with them.
Correct.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
I did write that.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
I thought his parents would want him to do the right
thing, but it seems they'reconcerned about not wanting to
feel uncomfortable and notwanting to get involved in their
son's personal matters.
Are overriding that, so fuckthem.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
I did write that.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
You wrote that I did.
That's what you thought about,gail, and Don correct, fuck them
.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
I wrote that and I was venting and I was frustrated
.
But I regret writing it and I'mashamed that I wrote that.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
I suggest these were your true feelings about how you
thought of Gail and Don.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
I disagree.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
And you weren't venting.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
I was venting.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
And that these feelings, these true feelings
that you had persisted throughto July 2023, correct, incorrect
and early August no Sameexhibit.
Exhibit F, page 6.
Oh sorry, exhibit 54.
You're right, page 6.
Oh sorry, exhibit 54.
You're right, page 6.
This is a message from you.
(11:45):
It is.
Dated the 7th of December 2022at 11.20am it is.
His parents sent me a messageyesterday afternoon and Simon
sent me one last night, but I'veread neither and I don't think
I will.
I don't want to hear it.
Simon's will just be horribleand be gaslighting and abusive
(12:07):
and it will ruin my day, and hisparents' message will be more
weasel words about not gettinginvolved.
You wrote those words, I did.
I suggest again that you wereangry.
They did not take your sideagainst Simon Patterson, correct
or incorrect?
Speaker 2 (12:23):
No, I wasn't angry, but I was frustrated and hurt.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
So you were frustrated and hurt when you
wrote the previous message offuck them.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Yeah, I was.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
Not angry.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
No.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
Tell you what YouTube is going to have.
A.
They're going to be not passingthis on because you know how it
doesn't like swearing.
Yeah, I don't know, it's gotsome kind of profanity filler,
so sorry.
If you want to listen onYouTube you'll have to dig Right
.
Same exhibit, page eight.
You can read that message.
You can see it.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Sorry, the water just got stuck in my throat.
Do you want?
Speaker 1 (13:05):
me to read it out loud or just read it.
No, I just want to make sureyou know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Yes, I do.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Quote his mum was horrified that I had claimed
child support.
Yes, why isn't she horrifiedthat her son is such a deadbeat
that I had no choice but toclaim?
That's the message you sent.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
I did.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
I suggest you were unhappy with Gail's response
about you claiming child supportat this point I don't know if I
was happy or unhappy.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
I mean, clearly I wasn't happy, but I don't think
unhappy is the right way to putit either, but I was frustrated,
I think.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
And hurt.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
I don't think hurt is reflected in this message.
I was frustrated, I was hurtabout a lot of things.
Yeah, I was.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
I want to go.
I've finished with that exhibitnow.
Thank you.
I now want to go to yourFacebook friend's evidence.
Christine Hunt gave evidenceand I'll break it down.
She said that you painted Simonas a father who was coercive.
You remember her saying that.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
Yeah, I do.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Who disagreed with you a lot.
You heard her say that.
I did disagreed with you a lotyou heard her say that I did and
in particular around somefollowing up of medical issues.
If one of the kids was not.
Well, yeah, she did say that.
She said you never seemed happywith his follow-up and his
commitment to what was happening.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
Yes, she did say that .
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Was what Christine Hunt gave evidence of,
consistent with what you hadtold her about, simon.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
No.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Okay, so I'll break it down then.
Okay, First, her evidence wasyou painted Simon as a father
who was coercive.
Agree that you told ChristineHunt that or disagree.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Disagree.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
She also said that you told her Simon disagreed
with you a lot and in particular, around some following up
medical issues if one of thechild wasn't well, did you tell
her that or not?
Speaker 2 (15:12):
No.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
Did you tell her that you were never happy, or seemed
happy, with his follow-up andhis commitment to what was
happening?
Speaker 2 (15:21):
I'm not sure what she's referring to there
Follow-up about what I don'tknow what she's talking about.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
Do you agree that you posted that Simon Patterson was
not a good father?
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Posted where?
Do you mean in the Facebookgroup?
I was in with Christine.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Yes, no, yes in with Christine.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
Yes, no.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Yes, with Christine Hunt.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
No.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
I didn't.
I want to go now to DanielaBarkley.
Her evidence was I'll break itdown as we go Sure, you posted
this is her evidence you postedon the Facebook group that Simon
wasn't a very nice person.
You heard her give thatevidence the Facebook group that
Simon wasn't a very nice person.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
You heard her give that evidence.
Can you just clarify for me?
Did she say I posted that in agroup or I said that in our
private chat, Because that makesa difference as to whether I
did it or not.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Well, did you do it on both oh?
Speaker 2 (16:19):
I definitely discussed my relationship with
Simon in the private group chat.
I don't remember saying hewasn't a very nice person.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Well, that was the evidence she gave in this trial.
She did give that, yeah, so didyou say it on a post that
Daniela Barkley read.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
I don't know if I did or I didn't.
I might have.
I might have said that in aprivate group chat.
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
Daniela Barkley also gave evidence that you weren't
happy with his cleanliness.
That's true?
You heard her say that, yes,and is that the truth that you
told her or that you posted that?
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Yeah, it is true, because I had to spend two weeks
cleaning his house at one point.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
Daniela Barclay also said that you didn't want the
kids to sleep over there atnight because you weren't happy
with the way he lived.
That's true yeah, so you toldher that.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
I possibly or not told, but posted.
I probably discussed that inthe chat with those four or five
women.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
yeah, Well, and Daniela Barclay was one of those
women?
Correct?
She was.
Yes, katrina Cripps' evidencewas that you told her and Naomi
Schroeder, on 1st of August 2023, that Simon had been mean to
you, but never nasty.
Yeah, I think I did say thatyes, did you tell Katrina Cripps
(17:49):
and Naomi Schroeder that SimonPatterson had become nasty
towards you after you claimedchild support?
That was the evidence of MissCrisp.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
Yeah, I did say that, yes.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
Yep, I'm moving to a different topic and this is
about your lunch invitation toSimon Patterson.
His evidence was that after thechurch service on the 16th of
July 2023, you approached himwhile he was sitting down at the
laptop sound mixing desk.
(18:22):
So I'll ask you to break itdown.
So you agree, you approachedhim on the 16th of July.
Yes, his evidence was that yousaid to him you had some
important medical news that youwanted some advice on.
He did say that.
Did you say it to him?
No, you disagree.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
I disagree.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Simon's evidence was that you said you had some
important medical news.
You wanted some advice on.
You dispute that quote, how tobreak it to the kids, that
phrase.
He did say that.
Yes, you heard him give thatevidence.
Yes, Did you say that to him?
Speaker 2 (19:02):
I did not.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
A continuation of his evidence is.
So you're inviting Don and Gail, mum and dad and Heather and
Ian and him to the lunch todiscuss that topic?
You heard him give thatevidence.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
What you just said, then are you saying that he said
that.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Yes, I'll read it again, but I'll do it again.
Yes, please, if you're unclear,sorry, that's you.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
Yep.
Sorry, I'm getting confused.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
I don't want you to be misled.
Yeah, simon Patterson, yep,gave evidence.
I'llled.
Yeah, simon Patterson, yep,gave evidence.
I'll recap Okay, that after thechurch service on the 16 July.
Yeah, you approached him whilehe was at the sound mixing desk.
Yes, you agreed that you didnot do that.
(19:57):
That's true.
Yes, his evidence is that yousaid you had some important
medical news, that you wantedsome advice on how to break it
to the kids.
You disagree, I disagree.
You say that that's not true,correct.
You didn't say that at all toSimon Patterson.
(20:17):
I did not say that.
Simon Patterson's evidence.
So you were inviting Don andGail, mum and dad, and Heather
and Ian and him to lunch.
So this is recounting theconversation that he had with
you.
Yep, so you told him you'reinviting Don, gail, mum and Dad,
(20:39):
in other words, and Heather andIan and Minimum to lunch to
discuss the topic.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Okay, no, that's not what I said to him.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
So did you tell him you were inviting his parents,
heather and Ian, and him tolunch?
Speaker 2 (20:59):
I told him that I'd already invited Ian and Heather
and Don and Gail, and I invitedhim as well.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
yes, but you dispute that.
You said to Simon to discussthat topic.
That is the important medicalnews.
Yes, that you wanted advice onhow to break it to the kids.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
Correct.
That wasn't the purpose of thelunch or the purpose of the
invitations.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
No, I'm not asking about the purpose of the lunch
or the purpose of the invitation.
I'm asking about the.
Isn't that what that means?
Speaker 2 (21:33):
That's me.
Oh sorry.
Is that what that means?
That you said I was invitingthem to discuss the medical
issues?
That implies purpose.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
That you wanted advice on how to break that to
the kid Correct.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
That wasn't the purpose of the lunch or the
purpose of the invitations.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
No, I'm not asking about the purpose of lunch or
the purpose of the invitations.
No, I'm not asking about thepurpose of lunch or the purpose
of the invitations.
I'm asking you about thatword's unclear.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Isn't that what that means, that you said I was
inviting them to discuss themedical issues?
That implies purpose, does itnot?
Unless I'm misunderstanding.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Simon's evidence is that you said to him you're
inviting his parents and Ian andHeather to lunch to discuss
important medical news, that youwanted some advice on how to
break that to the kids.
Yes, that's what I'm asking youabout.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
Yes, he did say that, but I did not say that to him.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
Did you ask if he'd be able to come on the 29th of
July 2023?
I did, so that's correct.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
Yeah, I did invite him to lunch.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
Yes, that's true, and that was Simon's evidence that
you did say to him he would beable to come to lunch on the
29th.
It is yes.
He also said you were keen forthe lunch not to be with the
kids.
You heard him say that.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
I did.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Did you say that to Simon or not?
Speaker 2 (23:06):
I did not.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
Simon's evidence was that he said he would attend the
lunch and you agreed.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
He did.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
Because that was your evidence in chief, wasn't it
Correct?
He did.
You asked him if he'd come tolunch and he agreed that he
would he did.
This is on the 16th of July.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
Simon's evidence was that you'd already invited his
parents, ian and Heather.
Yes, and they were going tocome.
Yes, and you were inviting himas well, correct?
That was his evidence, yep, soI want to make sure that I
understand your evidence.
On the 16th of July you invitedSimon to lunch for the 29th of
(23:50):
July I did, and you told himyou'd already invited Don and
Gail and Ian and Heather,correct?
I suggest to you you thoughtSimon would be more likely to
accept the invitation if he knewhis parents and Ian and Heather
were also attending.
Agree or disagree?
I would disagree with that.
I suggest that you did.
(24:10):
Forgive me if I'm suggestingthis twice.
You deny saying you told Simonyou had some important medical
news, that you wanted someadvice on how to break that to
the kids, correct?
Correct?
You flatly deny that, do you?
Speaker 2 (24:26):
I deny it.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
I suggest you told him you had a medical issue to
encourage him to attend.
Correct or incorrect?
Speaker 2 (24:34):
No incorrect.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
I suggest that this was also your excuse for while
the children were not present atthe lunch, and I assume you
disagree with that.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
I do disagree with that.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
I suggest that, in fact, you did not want your
children to be present for thelunch because you wanted to
ensure that there was no waythey could eat the meal that you
were planning to serve to yourguests on July 29.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
No, that's not true.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
Could I take you to exhibit two, please?
Are you able to read the screen?
Speaker 2 (25:06):
I can thank you.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
The top message is from Simon Patterson to you.
It is On the 28th of July 2023at 6.54pm.
Yes, Okay, we need a Simonvoice now, don't we?
We'll have to see if we canfind someone to be Simon.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Do you want me to?
Speaker 1 (25:28):
Drop it down a bit.
Yeah, no, it's okay, I'll justdo it in my best prosecutor
voice.
Sorry, I feel too uncomfortableabout coming to the lunch with
you Mum, dad, heather and Iantomorrow, but I'm happy to talk
about your health andimplications of that at another
time.
If you'd like to discuss on thephone, just let me know.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
He did say that.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
I suggest that the words in his message I'm happy
to talk about your health andthe implications of that is a
direct reference to you tellinghim on July 16 you had some
important medical news.
I disagree.
You responded to that message.
It's the blue message at thebottom.
It is.
You sent that the same evening6.59pm.
(26:15):
I did.
That was your response.
It was.
Do you agree that you urged himto reconsider in your message
to him?
I did.
Do you agree?
You said that?
Quote.
Sorry, you told him.
Quote may not be able to host alunch like this again for some
time, correct?
Speaker 2 (26:37):
I did say that.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
I suggest that you wrote and used those words to
make it seem like the medicalissue was the reason, correct or
incorrect?
Speaker 2 (26:47):
I don't understand the question, so I can't answer
it.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
Okay, I'll start again.
You can see in that message.
Okay, you've read the messageout and I'll please show.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
Sure, that's really disappointing.
I've spent many hours this weekpreparing for lunch for
tomorrow, which has beenexhausting in light of the
issues I'm facing, and spent asmall fortune on beef eye fillet
to make beef wellingtonsbecause I wanted it to be a
special meal.
As I may not be able to host alunch like this again for some
time, it's important to me thatyou're all there tomorrow and
(27:22):
that I can have theconversations that I need to
have.
I hope you'll change your mind.
Your parents and Heather andIan are coming at 12.30.
I hope to see you there.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
All right.
So in the second line you'vewritten, which has been
exhaustive in light of theissues I'm facing, yes, I
suggest that you are in that,the use of that phrase
purporting to refer to themedical issues you told him
about on 16 July.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Yeah, I did.
I did tell him on the 16th ofJuly that I wanted to discuss
some medical stuff at the lunch.
That is true, but I did not sayto him serious, important
medical news to break to thekids.
That's the purpose and that'sthe purpose of the lunch.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
All right.
So when I asked you a littleearlier, did you say to him that
you had important medical news,that you wanted some advice on
what was it about that youdisagreed important.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
That I said it was important and that I said I
wanted advice on it, on how tobreak it to the kids.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
Okay, so on the 16th of July you agreed that you told
Simon that you had some medicalnews that you wanted some
advice on.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
No, I think I just disagreed with that.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
Now we have to stop here now because the Supreme
Court owns the copyright to thistranscript, so we don't want to
violate fair use.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
Right.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
So, Louise, we have to thank you for being the first
ever guest on the MushroomMurder Trial podcast.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
I'm very honoured.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
I always drag you into my stuff, don't I?
Speaker 2 (29:01):
You do, but look I love it because it's just you
know Never a dull moment, nevera dull moment.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
So thank you everyone for listening.
Make sure you go to my website,Sign up for the newsletter.
It's free and I'm putting oneout today and there'll be all
sorts of interesting information.
Also, if you'd like to buy me acoffee $5, but only if you can
See I could actually buy Louisea coffee yeah, that'd be nice,
(29:30):
but only if you can afford it.
Otherwise, you just being hereis incredible, amazing.
We really appreciate it.
And if you're in Australia,happy long weekend.
And also the links to the showare in the show notes.
All my socials Buy me a coffeeAnything else, Louise?
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Well, I don't think so, just other than you're
fabulous.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
So are you, babe.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
Love you.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
Love you too.
All right, everyone, have afabulous weekend.
Enjoy your day off tomorrow, ifyou've got one, and we shall
talk soon.
Thanks, bye.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.