Erin Patterson trial hears of ‘four calculated deceptions’ at heart of mushroom lunch case as closing address begins | Victoria

Four -calculated deception, the prosecution of Patterson’s triple breed, the jury closing address, the defendants’ lunch with guests hoped to “die” claims to be a lie about the cancer.

On Monday, Nanette Rogers SC spent the 32nd day of the hearing and summarizing these four deceptions by closing the prosecution case: Patterson’s fabrication cancer claim; “Fatal Doses” of the “secreted” mushroom mushrooms in cooked beef wells at home; Patterson’s attempts to expose the death hat to be exposed to fungal poisoning; And üstün constantly covering the truth to hide the truth ”.

Rogers said that the latter is a critical deception that the prosecution claims against him ”about the lunch.

Patterson, 50 -year -old, is accused of three murder and murder attempts for allegedly poisoned the beef Wellingtons served at his home in Leongatha on July 29, 2023.

Patterson, his alienated husband Simon Patterson – his family Don and Gail Patterson and his aunt Heather Wilkinson – and his uncle Heather Heather was not found guilty of killing his husband Ian Wilkinson.

The jury told the jury that he acknowledged that mushrooms were at dinner, but he was accidentally involved and had no reason to harm his guests.

Rogers began the jury Patterson by telling you that he had full control on lunch, inviting guests, buying materials and preparing food.

Rogers said that Patterson’s recipe used intentionally made individual beef wells rather than the only bigger meal he wanted, so that Patterson could have more control over himself and his guests.

“Prosecution is a control it uses with a destructive effect, R said Rogers.

The prosecutor then summarized four deception, before working with thinner details slowly.

Rogers said that understanding the scams will allow the jury to “safely reject a reasonable possibility that it is a terrible accident”.

Rogers said that the cancer deception was created by Patterson to present a reason for an unusual lunch invitation.

Rogers said that Pattsons and Wilkinsons and Wilkinsons and Simon and Ian gave evidence that all the invitation was unusual.

He said that the texts between Patterson and Don and Gail shows “Baldfaced Lies ve about the medical tests about a lump in his elbow, and Patterson showed that Patterson showed his seed. [cancer] lie well in advance ”.

“We know that all of this is a fabrication, R said Rogers.

“There was no needle biopsy, there was no lump, and there was no MRI.”

Rogers directed the jury to the evidence of Patterson from devices showing web pages about cancer and said that he knew how to tell convincing lies ”.

However, Rogers also said he didn’t think that Patterson had to take into account his lie because he aimed to kill his guests.

“The lie was going to die with them, R said Rogers.

Rogers said that the jury should also reject the evidence given by Patterson that these online searches provided from paranoia.

“These were calculated by the defendant to produce a reason for lunch.”

The “critical” deception, Rogers, the poisonous beef well, said there was no direct evidence where Patterson supplies mushrooms of death hat.

However, the jury told the jury that they gathered from Outtim or Loch, two towns near Patterson’s house, where the death cover mushrooms were reported on the citizen science website in the months before lunch.

Considering the information found by the police, Rogers claimed that Patterson was familiar with the site and that the phone data went to the floor in April and May after the online publication of the mushrooms related to death Cap mushrooms.

He said the jury should question why Patterson decided to cook individual beef Wellingons and why he decided to use dried mushrooms when shopping records suggested, as sufficient from the supermarket.

Neden Why is it so significant from a recipe that is not familiar for a special lunch, R said Rokers.

Similarly, Rogers told the jury that Patterson would add any other evidence of how Patterson would add mushrooms to the dinner, that there may be proofs, how the unpleasant dried death cover smells.

Dr. He is a mushroom expert with an international reputation of stubborn observations about the growing death hat mushrooms in Outtim. Tom May told the court that he had previously dried his death caps and did not like the smell.

“It doesn’t make sense for someone to add something that smells very unpleasant to a private meal, R said Rogers.

Rogers described Ian Wilkinson as a reliable witness, and said that the jury can “accept them comfortably” what the jury told them about lunch. Ian, after completing the evidence in May, most of the hearing is in court.

Rogers said the evidence shows that the evidence shows the knowledge of finding Patterson’s death hats mushrooms, the opportunity to supply them shortly after lunch, and the knowledge and skill of staining them and storing them in food.

As mentioned in Ian’s evidence, Rogers gave Simon’s speeches with Heather, Patterson said that he had taken steps to make sure that his guests did not consume mushrooms by accidentally.

The jury should also find that Patterson was not exposed to mushroom poisoning of any death hat, but Rogers showed that he was sick after lunch.

“He knew he wasn’t poisoned, he knew he didn’t show signs of poisoning, and he knew how doubt it would be to everyone,” he said.

Rogers said that Patterson knew that his poisoning was “detected” when Dr Chris Webster was suspected of mushroom poisoning by Dr Chris Webster at Leongatha Hospital on the morning of July 31, 2023.

Patterson shortly after, he discharged himself against medical advice, spent 98 minutes away before returning, and said that the prosecution was unclear what he was doing right now, but he was not consistent to someone who was said to be in danger.

Rogers realized that what he did would emerge, R said Rokers.

“Just as he went out of the hospital, he could feel comfortable without taking any of the life -saving treatments…[if] He knew very well that he did not eat mushrooms. “

The hearing continues.