Erin Patterson appeals mushroom murder convictions

Erin Patterson, the Australian woman serving a life sentence for killing three relatives with death cap mushrooms, has appealed her convictions as prosecutors seek to have her kept in prison for the rest of her life.

Three judges of the Victoria state Court of Appeal began hearing Patterson’s case Wednesday in Melbourne, where her lawyers argued that a hotel mix-up involving jurors, prosecutors and a police witness was so serious it undermined the verdicts. Patterson, 51, watched the hearing by video link from prison and did not attend in person.

Patterson was found guilty last July after a nine-week trial of three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder. The charges stemmed from a July 2023 lunch at her rural home in Leongatha, in southeastern Australia, where she served beef Wellington pastries containing death cap mushrooms to relatives of her estranged husband, Simon Patterson.

Don and Gail Patterson, both 70, and Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, 66, died after the meal. Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson, spent weeks in hospital but survived. He was in court Wednesday. Simon Patterson had been invited to the lunch but did not attend.

Patterson argued at trial that the poisoning was an accident. She was sentenced in September to life in prison with a minimum term of 33 years before she can apply for parole. Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions is appealing that sentence, arguing the parole period is “manifestly inadequate.” Prosecutor Brendan Kissane said prosecutors will argue Thursday that Patterson should be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

Patterson’s barrister, Richard Edney, told the appeal court the trial was compromised when jurors, while deliberating, were sequestered in the same hotel as members of the prosecution team, a key police witness and journalists.

“This was a very serious breach of sequestration,” Edney said, calling it “catastrophic.” He said the situation had “undermined the integrity of the verdicts and requires the quashing of the convictions,” and argued that a retrial was needed “so that justice can not only be done but be seen to be done.”

Kissane said the mix-up was regrettable but appeared to have happened by accident. “The issue is whether there was communication between this jury and any other person,” he told the court. “The evidence as it stands points towards there being no communication.” He also said there was “no actual contact between any juror and any other person.”

Patterson’s lawyers also challenged evidence used to suggest she may have foraged death cap mushrooms before the lunch. During the trial, prosecutors pointed to reports on the citizen scientist site iNaturalist that death caps had been seen near Loch and Outtrim, and to telecommunications evidence that Patterson’s phone connected to towers in those areas.

Defense lawyer Veronika Drago said there was no evidence Patterson had seen the online posts, and that the phone evidence showed only that her phone may have been in the area. She accused prosecutors of “turning nothing into something.”

“That in and of itself, in our submission, illustrates just how dangerous and unfair that evidence was,” Drago said. “Speculation was invited by the prosecution.”

Crown prosecutor Jeremy McWilliams defended the evidence, saying it showed Patterson had an opportunity to deliberately source death cap mushrooms shortly before preparing the meal.

The defense also argued that prosecutor Nanette Rogers’ five-day cross-examination of Patterson was “unfair and oppressive,” and that Facebook messages in which Patterson criticized Simon Patterson and his parents should not have been admitted. Her lawyers said prosecutors improperly shifted from saying there was no evidence of motive to suggesting Patterson had animosity toward the Patterson family.

Asked by Justice Lesley Taylor whether she was alleging deliberate misconduct, Drago said: “It is certainly not a direct allegation or suggestion of that.” But she said the prosecution case changed between its opening and closing.

In filings before the hearing, prosecutors said the “guilty verdicts were inescapable,” citing the circumstances of the lunch invitation, Patterson being served on a different plate, the different medical outcomes between Patterson and her guests, and what they described as incriminating conduct.

If Patterson’s appeal succeeds, the judges could overturn her convictions and order a retrial. The appeal judges are expected to reserve their decision, meaning a ruling may not be known for weeks.