.png)
6 hours ago
6
Erin Patterson’s estranged husband has denied asking her “is that what you used to poison them?” in the days immediately after the deadly mushroom lunch.
Patterson, 50, faces three charges of murder and one charge of attempted murder relating to a beef wellington lunch she served at her house in Leongatha in South Gippsland in 2023.
Patterson has pleaded not guilty to murdering or attempting to murder the relatives of her estranged husband, Simon Patterson.
She is accused of murdering Simon’s parents, Don and Gail Patterson, his aunt Heather Wilkinson, and attempting to murder Ian Wilkinson, Simon’s uncle and Heather’s husband.
On Monday, Simon gave evidence for a third day in the trial, under cross-examination from Patterson’s lawyer, Colin Mandy SC. The supreme court is sitting in Morwell.
Simon, 50, told the court it was possible he and Patterson were left alone at various times while she was receiving treatment at Monash medical centre on 31 July 2023, two days after the lunch.
Their two children were also being monitored at the hospital at the time. The court heard last week that the family were discussing Patterson conducting a “taste test” on their youngest child with muffins made using mushrooms that she had dehydrated.
Mandy asked Simon on Monday whether the two children left Patterson’s hospital room soon after this, and Simon asked her “is that what you used to poison them?”. Mandy did not say who “them” may have referred to.
“I did not say that to Erin,” Simon responded.
Simon was again asked about a series of messages exchanged between him and Patterson. These messages included some shared on a Signal group chat with his parents.
Mandy said to Simon that the only messages between him and Patterson referring to child support and parenting arrangements uncovered during the police investigation had been put to him during his evidence.
But Simon said the messages he was referring to on Friday, when he described her “extremely aggressive” conduct and “inflammatory” messages to the group chat, had not been read in court.
Under reexamination from prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC, Simon said the message was so inflammatory that he was “extremely relieved” his mother had not read it.
He told the court that because his mother, Gail, became anxious after falling ill with encephalitis, Simon and his father instigated a “policy” that she should no longer read messages sent by Patterson to the chat in case they worsened her anxiety.
Simon said the message was in response to concerns he raised about their oldest child appearing “exhausted” during regular weekend visits with him, and him asking Patterson to ensure the child went to bed earlier.
Simon said the message was having a “crack at me” and “accusing me” of things, which he would have been OK about if it was sent directly to him, but “I’m still upset” that Patterson sent it to the group chat.
“I tell you what, if mum had read that, I don’t know what that would have done to her,” Simon told the court.
Among the messages that were read in court was another exchange in the group chat in early December 2022, when Patterson sent a long message referring to the ongoing dispute between the estranged couple regarding child support.
Simon told the court last week that a miscommunication between himself and his accountant resulted in him being listed as “separated” on his tax return earlier that year.
after newsletter promotion
This had family tax benefit and child support implications, the court has heard. Patterson said in the long message that the benefit had been worth about $15,000 a year.
Simon told the court last week that he was advised by child support authorities not to pay any expenses relating to the children, including school and medical fees, while the amount he had to pay in child support was calculated.
In the message, Patterson starts by saying that she can’t stop thinking about a comment Don made on the phone the previous evening about the financial issues being a “simple” thing to resolve.
She said it was not at all simple, as the estranged couple had been “basically lying to the government”. Of Simon, she said “I foolishly trusted him to do right by me and the kids when it came to the crunch”, and described him as “a bare minimum parent”.
Don replied that he may have misrepresented Simon, and that it was “best to move on”, but Patterson replied that following day that she would continue to update the group about the financial dispute to keep Simon accountable.
Other messages exchanged between the estranged couple show Patterson asking whether Simon could help move a tree off a fence at her property. The fence had been damaged, allowing one of Patterson’s goats into a neighbour’s yard. Patterson was holidaying with her children in New Zealand at the time
“Hey I understand we don’t really have the kind of the relationship where I can ask for a favour right now,” Patterson started her text, on 18 December 2022.
“Hey there, I’m always your husband no matter how we’re doing,” he responded.
Simon was also asked during reexamination why he had not contacted Patterson or his parents after the lunch to ask about the “medical issue” she mentioned to him as the reason for inviting him and the other guests to her property.
He mentioned several reasons, including that his parents would have considered it was Patterson’s news to tell, and that he couldn’t “reconcile” the fact Patterson described it as serious, but the lunch was to be held almost two weeks later.
“I didn’t feel completely confident there was a serious medical issue to be discussed,” he told the court.
The court previously heard Patterson told her lunch guests she had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer, but Mandy said she never had cancer.
Simon, who completed his evidence shortly after midday, spent more than seven hours in the witness box. The trial continues.
