Erin Patterson: Key question remaining after mushroom trial

Found guilty this week of murdering her husband’s parents and aunt, one key question remains unanswered in Erin Patterson’s poisoning trial; why? Patterson’s motivation for poisoning four in-laws with deadly mushrooms was only briefly addressed as her blockbuster trial played out in Victoria’s southwest this year. Prosecutors said they would not be putting forward a motive, explaining sometimes a killer’s reasons remain only known to them, while her defence argued she had “anti-motive”, or reasons to want her victims alive. The 50-year-old was on Monday found guilty of three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder by a jury after seven days of deliberations. She had pleaded not guilty, with her defence arguing the case was a tragic accident. In his final remarks to the jury, Justice Christopher Beale said the prosecution does not need to prove a motive to make out the charges of murder and attempted murder. “For some murders there may be evidence of motive, but some murders occur for no apparent reason,” he said. “The motives for such murders may only ever be known to the offenders.” He told the jury the prosecution had agreed there was no known reason why Patterson did what she was ultimately found guilty of. “It’s the allegations of murder and attempted murder the prosecution has to prove, nothing else,” the judge said. “But that does not mean that the absence of the evidence of a motive to kill is irrelevant. It is a relevant consideration, which you must take into account in the accused’s favour when weighing all the evidence in this case.” Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC touched on motive in her closing address, saying while the prosecution was not putting one forward; “you don’t have to know why a person does something in order to know they did it”. Dr Rogers said the evidence in the trial shows the relationship between Patterson and her in-laws was “not always a harmonious one”. The prosecutor pointed to Simon’s account of tension in their relationship in late 2022 over the issue of child support, with Don and Gail “dragged unwillingly” into the conflict. She said child protection practitioner Katrina Cripps had given evidence Patterson described Simon as “nasty” after that conflict and their son’s evidence the relationship was “very negative”. Dr Rogers suggested Patterson was leading a “duplicitous life”, presenting a positive face to the Patterson family while sharing her real feelings to her online friends, several of whom gave evidence. “ … the evidence shows, you might think, that the divide between the accused and her in-laws was deeper than they ever knew,” Dr Rogers said. “She expressed her real feelings about them and the broader Patterson family to her online friends.” Dr Rogers turned to a series of messages in December 2022 from Patterson to her online friends, where she called them a “lost cause”, mocked their religious beliefs and wrote; “this family I swear to God”. Patterson’s barrister, Colin Mandy SC, questioned why the prosecution had focused so much on a brief period of tension in 2022 when they weren’t putting forward a motive. “They spent so much time in this trial scratching around to try and find some suggestion of … animosity in the family dynamics,” he said. “There’s no anger or aggression. There’s not hatred or anything remotely approaching that. “Not even between Simon and Erin and certainly not between Erin and Simon’s parents.” Turning to the messages Patterson sent to her online friends, Mr Mandy labelled it an “aberration” in her relationship with the Patterson family that only spanned a few days. “Erin made a handful of comments in the context of being hurt and frustrated about these responses she was getting from Don and Gail, in the context of her issues with Simon, and that’s it,” he said. “And you might think that venting in that way is a pretty healthy thing to do.” The defence barrister said the prosecution’s case had ignored the years of love and support shown by the family to Patterson. “Erin Patterson had a motive to keep these people in her world so that they could keep supporting her and her children, especially her children,” he said. “Why would she take wonderful, active, loving grandparents away from her own children?” He further questioned why she would kill Ian and Heather, who she “hardly knew” aside from the church community. Mr Mandy said the evidence in the trial showed his client was a person of good character; a devoted mother of two with no prior convictions and close relationships with her in-laws, particularly Don and Gail. He agreed motive was not one of the four elements of murder the prosecution had to provide beyond reasonable doubt, but suggested it was an important consideration on the issue of his client’s intention. “Our argument to you is that motive is very important to the proof of intention and usually fundamental to it,” he said. “Without a motive, you’re left guessing about the most important element of the offence in this trial and that’s intention.” Patterson will return to court at a later date.