Australian Woman Convicted of Murdering Relatives with Poisonous Mushrooms

Australian Woman Convicted of Murdering Relatives with Poisonous Mushrooms

After a trial that spanned nine weeks and nearly two years of legal proceedings, a jury has found an Australian woman, Erin Patterson, guilty of murder and attempted murder. The charges relate to a lunch she prepared that killed three of her ex-husband’s family members after they ingested a dish containing highly toxic mushrooms.

The 50-year-old mother of two faces a potential life sentence and is awaiting her official sentencing.

The case dates back to July 2023, when Patterson hosted her estranged husband’s parents, aunt, and uncle for a meal at her home in Leongatha, a small town near Melbourne. During the trial, it was confirmed that she served them her homemade beef Wellington. Patterson herself admitted in court that the dish’s mushroom paste contained death cap mushrooms, a species known as one of the most deadly in the world.

Following the lunch, all four guests became severely ill with gastrointestinal symptoms and were hospitalized. Within a week, three of them died from liver failure and multi-organ damage caused by the Amanita mushroom poisoning. The sole survivor, Ian Wilkinson, recovered after an extended period in intensive care and later provided key testimony for the prosecution.

The lengthy trial saw over 50 witnesses and eight days of testimony from Patterson herself. The central question for the jury was whether Patterson deliberately poisoned her guests.

Prosecutors argued the act was intentional, pointing to financial tensions with her ex-husband, although they did not provide a specific motive. Patterson, who pleaded not guilty, maintained the poisoning was an accident. Her defense team contended that some foraged mushrooms were accidentally mixed into the dish. They claimed her subsequent actions—including lying to police about foraging, her food dehydrator, and her own illness—were driven by panic and fear, not guilt.

Before the jury’s final deliberation, Justice Christopher Beale cautioned them that Patterson’s admitted lies did not automatically prove her guilt. Despite this, the jury was ultimately convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of her culpability.

A Detailed Look at the Case

Patterson and her husband, Simon, were married in 2007 but permanently separated in 2015. Although they shared custody of their children, their relationship had become strained over child support issues by late 2022.

In July 2023, Patterson invited Simon, his parents Gail and Donald Patterson (both 70), and Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson (66) and her husband Ian Wilkinson (68) for lunch. The purpose of the meal, she told them, was to discuss a medical issue. Simon cancelled at the last minute, leading Patterson to text him her disappointment, saying she wanted the meal to be “special.” During the lunch, Patterson claimed to have been diagnosed with cancer, a statement the prosecution said was a lie and a pretext for the adults-only gathering. Patterson later admitted on the stand that she had fabricated the cancer story out of embarrassment over her planned weight-loss surgery.

Guests noticed that Patterson’s beef Wellington was on a different plate than the other four. This detail was later recounted by both the sole survivor and his late wife.

The guests’ health rapidly deteriorated, and doctors grew concerned when their symptoms pointed to a severe toxin syndrome. Toxicologists confirmed the presence of amanita phalloides poisoning. Despite receiving treatment, Heather Wilkinson and Gail Patterson died on August 4, and Donald Patterson passed away the next day. Ian Wilkinson was discharged from the hospital in September.

During the trial, Patterson’s behavior after the poisoning was heavily scrutinized. The prosecution highlighted her inconsistent accounts of her own symptoms, arguing that medical records showed she did not suffer from mushroom poisoning. Patterson and her lawyers insisted she had consumed a smaller, non-lethal amount of the dish.

Patterson also admitted to lying to investigators about several key details, including denying she foraged for mushrooms and owned a food dehydrator. She testified that she had discarded the dehydrator in a panic after the deaths became public, calling it a “stupid, knee-jerk reaction.”

Simon Patterson was the first witness, and Erin later testified that he had asked her if she had poisoned his parents, a claim he denied. Prosecutors presented evidence of phone resets and photos of wild mushrooms on a dehydrator tray found in her phone’s recovered data. Patterson explained she deleted the photos out of fear of what investigators might think.

Prosecution’s Argument

Prosecutor Nanette Rogers’ closing arguments centered on what she called Patterson’s four “calculated deceptions”: the fabricated cancer diagnosis, the fatal dose of poison, her feigned illness, and the subsequent cover-up. Rogers argued that Patterson used the cancer lie to set up the lunch and did not anticipate the guests would live to expose her.

Rogers alleged that Patterson used a naturalist website to find and collect death cap mushrooms, which she then dehydrated and used to poison her guests’ meals while taking care not to consume any herself. The prosecutor also noted Patterson’s health records did not align with the symptoms of the other guests, all of whom were in induced comas while she claimed to have recovered.

Defense’s Counter-Argument

Patterson’s lawyer, Colin Mandy, accused the prosecution of selective use of evidence. He argued that Patterson had no motive to harm her in-laws, with whom she had a good relationship. Mandy pointed out that if she had intended to kill them, she would not have done things like buy the dehydrator under her own name or leave photographic evidence on her phone. He maintained that her lies and panicked actions were the result of fear, not guilt.

Mandy also argued that the different-colored plate was not conclusive evidence of a murder plot and that Patterson’s inconsistent statements could be attributed to the normal fallibility of human memory. He stressed that a lie about a minor detail did not automatically prove her guilty of murder.