The year was 2020 and Erin Patterson clicked on a Facebook page to check for information on poisons after her cat ate what she thought might be a deadly mushroom.
The only problem was – Patterson never owned a cat.
In evidence the jury never saw, the court heard Patterson went to a page titled ‘Poisons help: emergency identification for mushrooms and plants’.
‘My cat chewed on this mushroom just now. He is having a vomit. Was in grassland near trees, I’m in Victoria Australia,’ she wrote.
Prosecutor Jane Warren claimed Patterson made the post to obtain information on how to poison people.
‘Back in 2020, her interest in mushrooms had nothing to do with eating or anything of that nature,’ she said.
‘Her interest in mushrooms was in the poisonous properties of mushrooms and, in our submission, this post supports that inference and it rebuts any inference that she had an interest in foraging or picking mushrooms for the purposes of eating mushrooms.’
The evidence was struck out as part of Justice Christopher Beale’s initial pre-trial rulings but was reintroduced by Patterson’s defence at the end of the trial.
The prosecution claimed that Erin Patterson (above) pretended she had a cat that had ‘chewed on a mushroom and was having a vomit ‘ to obtain information on how to poison people
The prosecution argued that Patterson was only interested in mushrooms for their poisonous properties
Patterson’s barristers had wanted to convince the jury she had long held an interest in foraging – thus giving weight to her claims the death cap mushrooms in her beef Wellington had been picked by mistake.
Colin Mandy, SC, wanted to tell the jury his client had not simply foraged mushrooms for the deadly lunch that one time.
Mr Mandy believed a bundle of photos taken in April 2020 suggested Patterson had been foraging mushrooms, which she cooked and ate, for years.
The move was strongly opposed by the prosecution.
‘It’s speculative to say … that she was doing it for the purpose of eating them,’ Ms Warren told Justice Beale.
‘Your Honour, I made the point there’s no evidence of preparation for cooking meals, anything like that. Some of the photographs show the mushrooms on newspaper, which depending on how people prepare their food, one might think that’s contrary to how you would treat food on newspaper.
‘I know fish and chips used to, but it’s been a long time since that happened.’
Ms Warren argued if the supposed foraging images went before the jury, she should be able to include the ‘cat post’ image, which had been captured around the same time.
The images had been located on one of Patterson’s many SD memory cards police found in her home.
Homicide Squad Senior Constable Stephen Eppingstall worked hard to create an airtight brief of evidence but suffered from setbacks beyond his control
Prosecutor Jane Warren (right) did much of the heavy lifting throughout the epic trial
‘So they’re on the same device that the photographs that – the impugned photographs that Mr Mandy wants to adduce,’ Ms Warren said.
‘According to the records, they’re taken about two weeks after those other photographs. These photographs then – if your Honour looks to the cat post, which is the single page that I have provided, these appear to be the same photographs that were put on to this Facebook post.’
Ms Warren told the court Patterson had never owned a cat in her entire life.
‘What I’m saying is that if my learned friends want to put in these photographs of mushrooms that were picked in April, then in re-examination, we would be seeking to put in these additional photographs from the same device, and the evidence of the Facebook posts that was made at the same time as those photographs which, in our submission, demonstrates that her interest in mushrooms, at least inferentially, centred around the poisonous properties of mushrooms, not around whether or not she could eat them,’ she said.
Justice Beale, who had already ruled out ‘tendency evidence’ from the trial, expressed serious concerns about allowing the jury to be shown evidence suggesting Patterson had a habit of picking mushrooms.
‘It seems to me he’s suggesting that she had a tendency to pick and eat mushrooms,’ he said.
Patterson had repeatedly lied to both police and medical professionals about foraging for mushrooms.
Erin Patterson’s defence team included Colin Mandy, SC (right) and Sophie Stafford (left)
‘The witnesses, the medical witnesses in particular … they weren’t asking her generally, “Are you a forager?” They asked her, “Did you forage for these mushrooms”, the mushrooms that went into the beef Wellington and she said, “No”,’ Ms Warren said.
‘So that’s suggesting that the lie is based on whether or not she’d ever foraged, in my submission.
‘There’s two layers to it. There is that lie in the record of interview about ever foraging, but she has also lied multiple times, in our submission, about foraging for these mushrooms that went into the beef Wellington.’
Crown Prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers said the introduction of the ‘cat post’ would have changed how she ran her case against Patterson.
That included inadmissible evidence Patterson had only ever searched for ‘death cap mushrooms’ on computers seized from her property.
‘We would have led that the only online content located on those two devices related to death cap mushrooms, and that there was no online content relating to other mushrooms or mushrooming was located on either of those two computers,’ she said.
‘Secondly, the cat post notice and the related photos, we would have led evidence that the accused had made the post in May 2020. We would have led evidence that she never owned a cat and, thirdly; that the accused was trying to get information about the poisonous properties of mushrooms.
‘Thirdly, we would have led evidence that the books owned by the accused at her home were examined and catalogued by police, and there were no books located relating to mushrooming or foraging.
Crown Prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers was not happy about a late bid by Patterson’s defence to introduce evidence previously scrapped by the judge
‘And finally, we would have led evidence that a download report of the accused’s Samsung mobile phone contained approximately 600 pages of messages between her and her online friends. And in those 600 pages, there is not a single message from her about picking wild mushrooms.’
Dr Rogers argued if Patterson disputed any of those matters put to her in cross-examination then the Crown ought to be entitled to reopen its case and lead evidence.
‘I can’t put it forcefully enough about how the prosecution has been prejudiced by this late event,’ Dr Rogers said.
‘Our case would have looked a little different to what it appears now, and there must be fairness to both sides, not just the accused, but also to the Crown.’
While Justice Beale ruled the images could be shown to the jury, a deal between Dr Rogers and Mr Mandy meant the ‘cat post’ never saw the light of day.
