Key Point Summary – Erin Patterson Trial

• Erin Patterson repeatedly declared “not guilty” by her lawyer in a dramatic closing.
• Defense argues there’s a reasonable possibility of accidental mushroom foraging.
• Prosecution claims Patterson lied consistently to hide a deliberate poisoning.
• Patterson denies intentionally adding death cap mushrooms to the beef wellington.
• Judge’s instructions to jury expected to take two full days before deliberation.

Defense Delivers a Mantra of Innocence

The long-awaited closing arguments in the sensational Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial ended with a powerful flourish. As the jury leaned in for the final words from the defense, Colin Mandy SC repeated the phrase “not guilty” twelve times in a single minute—each one more deliberate than the last.

It marked the final plea from Patterson’s side before the jury, and the last words they would hear from any lawyer in the courtroom. Now, only Justice Christopher Beale’s instructions remain before deliberation begins.

Patterson, 50, faces three counts of murder and one of attempted murder for allegedly serving a deadly lunch of beef wellington laced with death cap mushrooms to her former in-laws and their relatives on July 29, 2023. She has maintained her innocence throughout, claiming it was a tragic accident.

Reasonable Doubt vs Calculated Deception

The crux of Mandy’s closing was a full-throated defense of reasonable doubt. He told jurors that even if they thought it was “possible,” “maybe,” or even “probably” that Patterson intentionally poisoned the food, that still wouldn’t be enough to convict.

In a metaphor that cut through legalese, Mandy compared the trial not to a boxing match but to a high jump, where only the prosecution had to clear the bar of certainty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they failed to do so, Patterson must walk free.

“If you think it is a reasonable possibility that her evidence was true,” Mandy emphasized, “you must find her not guilty.”

‘Lies Upon Lies,’ Says Prosecution

Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC didn’t let Patterson off so easily. In stark contrast to Mandy’s animated courtroom theatrics, Rogers delivered her closing in calm, deliberate tones. But her words were cutting. She argued that Patterson had constructed “lies upon lies” to avoid implicating herself in the deaths.

Rogers highlighted Patterson’s history of deception, including a false claim about having had weight-loss surgery. She claimed Patterson fabricated her narrative only after realizing the initial story wouldn’t hold up under scrutiny.

“There are some inconsistencies that she just cannot account for,” Rogers stated, “so she ignores them, says she can’t remember, or says other people—including her own children—are wrong.”

Rogers rejected the idea that this was a foraging accident, saying the only reasonable explanation was deliberate poisoning.

Did She Taste the Toxin First?

A curious point raised by the defense was that Patterson herself became ill—possibly even before her guests—because she tasted the mushroom mixture, known as duxelles, during preparation. She described the taste as bland and added dried mushrooms from a container she believed came from an Asian grocer.

Mandy insisted she had no idea the mushrooms could have included death caps and that the prosecution had provided no direct evidence proving she knew what she was doing.

Moreover, he urged jurors not to convict her based on alleged lies, reminding them Patterson is “not on trial for lying.”

A High-Stakes Showdown

In one of the most theatrical moments of the trial, Mandy mocked the idea that Patterson had been lying in wait for a rare death cap mushroom sighting on a citizen science site, iNaturalist. Mimicking the act of endlessly refreshing a browser, he asked jurors: “How likely is that?”

He then snapped back to seriousness, reminding them: “There’s not one scrap of evidence that she actually saw those posts.”

The Judge’s Final Word

Justice Beale reminded jurors not to jump to conclusions. “Maintain an open mind,” he instructed, adding that his own legal guidance will take two full days. The jury will not begin deliberations until Wednesday at the earliest.

As the case nears its dramatic end, one thing is clear—whether it was murder by mushroom or a horrifying accident, the jury holds the answer. And Australia is watching.