The jurors in the trial of the murder of Australians, accused of preparing a deadly lunch for mushrooms, withdrew to decide their fate.
The 50 -year -old Erin Patterson admitted that she was not guilty of four accusations – three for murder and one of the attempted murder – for the lunch of Beef Wellington at your regional Victorian house in July 2023.
The prosecutor's office claims that Mrs. Patterson deliberately invested toxic mushrooms from the death hat in the prepared food before lying to the police and throwing away evidence.
But the defense claims that D -Ja Patterson accidentally included the poisonous fungi in the dish and lied only because she panicked after hurting the people she loved.
The legal laws of Mrs. Patterson, Don and Gayle Patterson, and at the age of 70, along with Gail Heather Wilkinson's sister, 66, everyone became ill and died days after lunch in Lengata.
Heather's husband, the local pastor Ian Wilkinson, recovered in an induced coma in weeks. Simon Patterson, the alienated husband of the accused, was also invited to lunch, but removed the previous day.
On Monday, justice Christopher Beal gave his final instructions to the 14-member jury, summarizing evidence from the prosecutor's office and the only witness to the defense, Mrs. Patterson.
After almost two months and more than 50 witnesses, the last 12 jurors were resolved by a vote before the group retired for discussions.
In his closing arguments, prosecutor Nanet Rogers SC said that D -Ja Patterson had “said so much lies that it was difficult to follow them.”
The prosecutor's office claims that Da Patterson has lied to her relatives for the diagnosis of cancer to convince them to attend the fatal lunch, to poison them, and then falsify the disease to cover her tracks.
The more lies of D -Ja Paterson lies to police and medical staff to feed wild mushrooms, as well as her decision to throw away the food dehydrator used to prepare eating, were evidence of her guilt, they claim.
“She told lies to lies because she knew the truth would involve her,” Nanet Rogers said.
“When she knew her lies were revealed, she invented a carefully constructed story to fit into the evidence – almost.”
There was no “special motive” for the alleged crime, Dr. Rogers told the court, but the jurors still had to have “no difficulties” in rejecting the argument “All this was a terrible incident of feed.”
However, the defense claims that the lack of a motive is key. Patterson had no reason to kill his guests, they said.
During Mrs. Patterson's evidence, she told the jurors that she was very close to her laws and never intended to hurt them.
As she was preparing lunch, Mrs. Patterson claims to be adding mushrooms from a container to her closet, for which she now realized that she could have included both bought in the store and fed mushrooms.
She also told the court that she had been suffering from bulimia for years and made herself throw herself after eating Beef Wellington, something that her defense team says, explains why she did not get sick as the others who eat her.
It was a lie about cancer because she was embarrassed by plans to get a weight loss surgery, Mrs. Patterson said, and did not tell the authorities the truth about the hobby of her mushrooms because she was afraid she could blame her for her relatives.
“She is not a lie for a lie,” Defense lawyer Colin Mandy SK, “This is not a judgment of the moral decision.”
He accused the prosecutor's office of trying to force “puzzles” of evidence together, “stretching interpretations, ignoring alternative explanations because they did not come perfectly with the story.”
In his final instructions, justice Beal told members of the jurors that they were only “the judges of the facts in this case.”
He said that they should not condemn d -Ja Patterson just for a lie, as there are “any reasons why one can behave in a way that makes a person look guilty.”
He added that while “any reasonable person would feel great sympathy” to the families of Patterson and Wilkinson, the jurors also should not afford to swing with emotions.
The jurors have already been seized, which means that while they are deliberate, they will remain in supervisory accommodation where they will have almost no contact with the outside world until they decide.