Erin Patterson: Key question remaining after mushroom trial

This week, he was found guilty of killing her husband’s parents and aunt, and an important question in Patterson’s poisoning hearing remained unanswered; From where?

Patterson’s motivation to poison the four mother -in -law with deadly mushrooms was briefly discussed because of the attempt by breaking box office records in the southwest of Victoria this year.

The prosecutors said that sometimes the causes of a murderer were only known to them, but they said they would not put a motive that defends the defense of the “anti -motivated” or to want their victims to be alive.

On Monday, the 50 -year -old was found guilty of three murders after seven -day negotiations, and a jury was found guilty of a murder attempt.

He claimed that he was not guilty, and his defense argued that the case was a tragic accident.

In his recent statements, Justice Christopher Beale said that the prosecution did not have to prove that there was a reason to reveal murder charges and murder attempt.

“There may be evidence of motives for some murders, but some murders emerge for a clear reason,” he said.

“The reasons for such murders can only be known by criminals.”

The jury said that the prosecution acknowledged that Patterson is not a known reason for him to do what he was doing guilty.

“This murder allegations and murder attempt to prove that prosecution, nothing else,” he said.

“However, this does not mean that there is no evidence of a motive for killing. This is a matter that you need to consider in favor of the defendant when scanning all the evidence in this case.”

Royal Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC, saying that the prosecution did not put forward, touched on the closing address; “You don’t have to know that a person is doing something to know why he’s doing”.

Dr. Rogers said that the evidence at the hearing shows that the relationship between Patterson and his mother -in -law is not always compatible ”.

The prosecutor drew attention to Simon’s explanation of the tension in his relationships on alimony in late 2022, and he was “reluctantly dragged to the Don and Gail conflict.

Katrina Cripps, a child protector practitioner, described Patterson’s Simon as “bad after this conflict, and the evidence of his sons was“ very negative ..

Dr Rogers argued that Patterson ruled a “second life ve and shared his real feelings to his online friends and offered a positive face to his Patterson family.

“Ev evidence may show that the division between the defendant and mother -in -law is deeper than they know, Dr Dr Rogers said.

“He expressed his real feelings about them and his wider Patterson family to his online friends.”

In December 2022, Dr Rogers returned to a series of messages from Patterson to his online friends, where he called them a “missing reason ,, he mocked and wrote his religious beliefs; “I swear this family to God”.

Patterson’s lawyer Colin Mandy SC questioned why prosecution was so focused on a short tension period when they did not put forward a motive in 2022.

“In this experiment, they spent a lot of time to walk around to find some suggestions of hostility in family dynamics,” he said.

“There is no anger or aggression. Hate or nothing approaching from a distance.

“Not even between Simon and Erin, and it’s definitely not between Erin and Simon’s parents.”

Returning to the messages sent by Patterson to his online friends, Mr. Mandy described it as a “deviation” in his relationship with his Patterson family.

“Erin, Don and Gail’dan about these answers to a handful of hurt and angry in the context of a handful of comments, Simon problems in the context of the context, and all of them,” he said.

“And you can think that ventilation is quite healthy in this way.”

Defense lawyer, the prosecution of the family’s love and support to the family’s love and support, he said.

“Erin Patterson had the reason for keeping these people in his world, so they could continue to support him and his children, especially his children,” he said.

“Why would he take the wonderful, active, loving grandmother and grandfather away from their children?”

He also questioned why he would kill Ian and Heather, as well as the church community.

Mr. Mandy said the evidence at the hearing shows that his client is a good character; He is a loyal mother who has not previously convicted and does not have close relations with Don and Gailide, especially in mother -in -law.

The authority acknowledged that the judiciary was not one of the four murder elements that should go beyond reasonable suspicion, but argued that this was an important issue in the intention of his client.

“Our argument for you is that this motive is very important for the evidence of intention and is usually basic for him”.

“Without a reason, you estimate the most important element of the crime at this hearing, and this intention.”

Patterson will return to court at a later date.