Patterson also tells triple murder trial she’s ‘puzzled’ clinic she says she had an appointment for a gastric bypass offers no such surgery Who are Erin Patterson and the other key figures in Australia’s mushroom trial? Erin Patterson says she is “puzzled” that a clinic in which she said she had an appointment for a gastric bypass offers no such surgery, and denies lying about making herself vomit in the hours immediately after the beef wellington lunch, a court has heard. In her sixth day in the witness box, Patterson was repeatedly asked under cross-examination by prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC whether she was lying about the deadly lunch and other parts of her evidence before her triple-murder trial. Patterson, 50, faces three charges of murder and one charge of attempted murder relating to poisoning four in-laws with beef wellington served for lunch at her house in Leongatha, Victoria on 29 July 2023. Patterson has pleaded not guilty to murdering her estranged husband Simon Patterson’s parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and his aunt Heather Wilkinson, and attempting to murder Ian Wilkinson, Simon’s uncle and Heather’s husband. Lawyers for Patterson say the death cap mushroom poisoning was a tragic and terrible accident. Patterson told the court last week that she had a pre-assessment booking for gastric bypass surgery scheduled at Enrich Clinic in September 2023. But Rogers said to Patterson on Tuesday that Enrich was a cosmetic dermatology clinic, and did not offer gastric bypass surgery. Patterson said she was “puzzled” that was the case. “In what way?” Rogers asked. “Well I had an appointment with them, and that’s my memory of what the appointment was for, so that’s why I’m puzzled.” Rogers confirmed the appointment was made, and had been cancelled by Patterson two days before it was scheduled. Patterson believed the appointment related to weight-loss surgery, but said it may have been a different procedure. “It wasn’t a lie, that’s what my memory was,” Patterson said. Rogers also asked Patterson about her evidence last week that she made herself vomit in the hours after the lunch, after she felt overfull from eating the beef wellington and a large portion of orange cake. Patterson said she had a history of binge eating and purging dating back to her 20s. Rogers accused Patterson of lying about vomiting on the afternoon of the lunch after her guests left. “You did not tell a single medical person that you had vomited up after the lunch on the 29th of July?” Rogers asked. “That is true, I didn’t do that,” Patterson said. Rogers suggested to Patterson that she lied about vomiting after the lunch, and about how much she ate at lunch, “because you’re trying to account for why the others were seriously ill and you were not”. “I wish that was true, but it’s not,” Patterson responded. Patterson also denied suggestions from Rogers regarding the plating at the lunch. Patterson said evidence Ian gave about the guests being served on matching large grey plates, and Patterson serving herself on a smaller lighter coloured plate, was incorrect. She said she did not know whether evidence Simon gave about Heather making two comments to him about mismatched plates was also wrong. Rogers suggested to Patterson she used different plates as she made poisoned beef wellingtons for her guests, but that hers did not contain death cap mushrooms. “To avoid any error, you took the extra precaution of using a different and smaller plate, to plate your non-poisoned serve, correct or incorrect?” Rogers asked. “Incorrect,” Patterson responded. Patterson said she did not own a set of four matching plates. “I suggest your whole story is untrue that you plated the food without discrimination,” Rogers asked her. “You’re wrong,” Patterson replied. Earlier on Tuesday morning, after answering a question from Rogers regarding the internet search history of devices seized from her home, Patterson attempted to further clarify the evidence before Rogers asked another question. “Ms Patterson, I am the person who asks the questions,” Rogers said. “If there something that needs to be clarified in re-examination, your barrister will do so.” “No problem,” Patterson replied. The trial continues.
