In the triple murder trial of Erin Patterson, jurors have been instructed by Justice Christopher Beale that they are not obligated to accept any expert opinions presented during the trial, as they hold the role of fact-finders. Justice Beale spent a second day reviewing the final instructions for the jury, which consists of 14 members, at the Morwell court in Victoria.
Patterson, aged 50, has pleaded not guilty to three murder charges and one attempted murder charge. These charges stem from a fatal meal she served that contained death cap mushrooms, resulting in the deaths of her former in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, both aged 70, and Gail’s sister, 66-year-old Heather Wilkinson. The only survivor of the meal was Heather’s husband, Ian, who has since fully recovered.
The jury’s assembly was brief, lasting approximately two hours, as further discussions were necessary among the judge and legal teams. In his address, Justice Beale emphasised the importance of scrutinising the evidence provided by digital forensics expert Shamen Fox-Henry, who analysed data extracted from devices belonging to Patterson, including a personal computer, tablet, and mobile phone. Notably, one phone was never recovered, raising further questions about the evidence.
Justice Beale highlighted that one of Patterson’s phones had undergone multiple factory resets, one of which allegedly occurred while the device was secured in a police locker. Evidence was also presented that Patterson visited a science website concerning death cap mushrooms prior to the tragic incident, although her defence contended that she sought confirmation of mushroom posts to demonstrate they were not present in her region at the relevant time.
The jury was reminded to critically evaluate witness testimonies and expert opinions, with Justice Beale asserting, “You are not required to accept the opinions of Dr Sorrel or Mr Fox-Henry, or indeed the expert opinions of the other experts who gave evidence in this case.” He urged them to consider each expert’s qualifications, objectivity, and the context of their evidence.
The prosecution alleges various incriminating behaviours on Patterson’s part, including her claims of illness following the lunch and her possession of a dehydrator. It is suggested that these actions indicate an awareness of guilt. Conversely, the defence argues that there are plausible, innocent explanations for Patterson’s actions.
As the jury awaits the completion of Justice Beale’s final directions, which will conclude tomorrow, it is anticipated that they will soon be reduced to a jury of 12 for deliberation on Patterson’s guilt or innocence. The atmosphere in court turned light-hearted as the judge jokingly commented that the charge might not be finished as soon as expected.