Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial LIVE updates: Defence gives closing arguments as murder trial enters final days

Mr Mandy has spoken highly of his client, and detailed to the jury she was a mother of two children.

‘She’s a person of good character,’ Mr Mandy said

‘Evidence is she always had a good relationship with Don and Gail … they treated her like a daughter.’

He reminded the jury about Patterson’s evidence in the witness box where she expressed her love for each of her lunch guests.

Mr Mandy said his client had wanted to move from Western Australia back to Victoria to be closer to Simon’s family, which she felt was her support network.

Mr Mandy said there was some confusion over Tanya Patterson’s evidence on what the accused did and didn’t know about the condition of her lunch guests.

He told the jury people were going out of their way not to share information with Patterson.

Patterson, who is wearing an olive-coloured jumper, listened as Mr Mandy questioned when she learned Don and Gail (pictured) were in comas.

Mr Mandy said the doctors didn’t tell Patterson Don and Gail were in comas.

‘So how was Erin going to find that out?’ Mr Mandy asked.

Mr Mandy suggested Patterson could have asked but also told the jury there was no evidence Don and Gail were in comas the day Tanya visited Erin at hospital on August 1.

‘Tanya Patterson may well have an honest but mistaken memory of that conversation,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy told the jury they wouldn’t know what they would have done in the same situation and added his client admitted to telling lies.

‘She’s not on trial for being a liar,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said nothing about what Patterson did after the lunch changed her intention for the meal.

He said a person who made four people unwell like his client might have had motive to tell lies.

‘Why tell people the leftovers existed at all?’ Mr Mandy said.

‘Why get rid of the meat… and keep the pastry and mushroom paste.’

Mr Mandy (pictured right) has continued his closing address to the jury and is talking about ‘hindsight reasoning’.

Mr Mandy said the Crown asked the jury ‘what would you do’ in the situation Patterson was in after the lunch.

‘We can’t change the past,’ he said.

‘Whatever Erin Patterson’s intention was when she served the meal is what it was.’

He suggested drawing hypothetical reasoning into the case was inappropriate.

Mr Mandy said it was an invitation to apply a moral judgement to what someone has done

‘It’s a distraction from the exercise you’re undertaking,’ he said.

Mr Mandy also told the jury it’s not the job of the defence to explain ‘hypothetical situations’.

‘Hindsight reasoning can create a false clarity about ambiguous situations,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said the intent may seem sinister if you look back and see what happened in the aftermath.

‘Even if the actual evidence of that intent is weak,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy on Tuesday moved to the topic of the leftovers and what Patterson ate during the lunch.

The defence barrister said the prosecution had to prove there was one ‘unpoisoned parcel’ but no unpoisoned beef Wellington portion was found in the leftovers.

Mr Mandy said there was no evidence Patterson ate all her Wellington.

He also described the Crown’s case as a ‘charade’ regarding what was found in the bin.

Mr Mandy told the jury the prosecution claimed there were ‘clearly two halves’ found in the bin.

But he said there was no evidence to suggest there were two halves in the bin because no one was asked about it.

Mr Mandy also claimed the Crown said Patterson was ‘forced’ to tell authorities the leftovers were in the bin.

‘It’s obviously not true,’ Mr Mandy said.

‘Here’s the pin code for my gate, help yourself [is what Patterson told police].’

Mr Mandy said his client was co-operative about where the leftovers were.

‘Without hesitation,’ he said.

‘This suggests at that time Ms Patterson did not know there was poison in them.’

Mr Mandy said a guilty person would have already thrown the leftovers out.

‘There had been two days to do all that instead of direct the police where (to find them),’ he said.

‘An innocent person would say “go grab them, help yourselves”, that’s what she did say.’

The trial will resume at 10.30am.

Mr Mandy has asked the jury to consider why Patterson would want to kill her lunch guests.

He said ‘any thoughts of rights or wrongs’ wasn’t evidence and to ‘put all that aside’.

‘As a judge, what’s in your heart has no relevance at all in considering the facts,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy urged the jury to rely on the evidence.

‘Why on earth would anyone want to kill these people?’ he asked.

‘Why would Erin Patterson want to kill them? Because of a brief period of tension in December of 2022?

‘Which had absolutely nothing to do with Ian and Heather (pictured).’

Mr Mandy said Patterson had ‘absolutely no reason at all’ to hurt Don and Gail either and there was ‘an absence of a motive’.

He suggested the Crown had tried to flesh out ‘some kind of reason’ for the crime.

Mr Mandy said an element of the crime was ‘intention’.

‘And they have to prove that’s what Erin Patterson meant to do,’ he said.

Mr Mandy (pictured) began his closing address to the jury on Tuesday afternoon.

‘Is there a reasonable possibility that death cap mushrooms were put into this meal accidentally?’ Mr Mandy asked the jury.

Mr Mandy said if the jury accepted Patterson also did not intend to kill her guests, they should acquit her.

He also described the prosecution’s case as ‘flawed’.

Mr Mandy said the prosecution had picked bits of evidence ‘they liked’ and glossed over other parts they didn’t like.

He told the jury the prosecution had ‘picked and chosen’ evidence and ‘constructed a case theory’.

‘Cherry picking convenient fragments,’ Mr Mandy said.

Mr Mandy said Patterson’s daughter claimed she went to the toilet ‘at least 10 times’.

‘That’s not a vague recollection,’ Mr Mandy said

‘Yet the prosecution says dismiss that because she doesn’t have any memory of going to Tyabb in the car.’

Dr Rogers told the jury yesterday it was ‘in the best possible position’ to determine the issues in this case which they should regard as a ‘jigsaw puzzle’.

‘And as the pieces were put together, the picture starts to become clear,’ she said.

Dr Rogers (pictured) argued the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt Patterson was guilty.

‘You must not feel sorry for the accused in the position she’s facing these criminal charges,’ she said.

‘You might not understand it.’

Dr Rogers argued there was no reasonable alternative than that Patterson deliberately killed her lunch guests.

‘She’s told lies upon lies because she knew the truth would implicate her,’ she said.

Dr Rogers said Patterson’s ‘fifth deception’ was to the jury itself.

The prosecutor said Patterson constructed a narrative in the witness box.

Dr Rogers also pointed to the fact that she claimed even her own children were wrong and listed all the key elements she claimed pointed to Patterson’s guilt.

She said the jury should be satisfied Patterson intended to kill each of her lunch guests.

Lead defence barrister Colin Mandy SC commenced his closing address to the jury in the Erin Patterson murder trial on Tuesday afternoon.

Mr Mandy called the prosecution’s case ‘flawed’ and even labelled some aspects of the case a ‘fantasy’.

Crown prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers wrapped up her closing address to the jury just before lunch yesterday.

Justice Christopher Beale has indicated he will commence his ‘charge’ to the jury after Mr Mandy has concluded his closing address.

Justice Beale already indicated to the jury his final instructions will go for several days.

The closings followed Patterson who entered the witness box for her eighth and final day in her own marathon murder trial last Thursday.

Patterson has been a big drawcard with dozens of members of the public braving the cold to queue up outside (pictured) the courthouse very early each morning to get a front row seat in the courtroom.

Patterson, 50, is accused of murdering her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, after allegedly serving them a beef Wellington lunch made with death cap mushrooms.

Patterson is also accused of attempting to murder Heather’s husband, pastor Ian Wilkinson, who survived the lunch after spending several weeks in an intensive care unit.

The court heard Patterson’s estranged husband, Simon, was also invited to the gathering at her home in Leongatha, in Victoria’s Gippsland region, but didn’t attend.

Witnesses told the jury that Patterson ate her serving from a smaller, differently-coloured plate to those of her guests, who ate off four grey plates.

Patterson told authorities she bought dried mushrooms from an unnamed Asian store in the Monash area of Melbourne, but health inspectors could find no evidence of this.